Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2018, 23:56
by project458
This thread will dedicated to Russia ongoing UAV/UCAV programs,

I will start with the first post

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... this-year/

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 14:01
by mixelflick
It will be interesting to see how (or if) this progresses. Going to take quite a leap for them to couple a truly VLO airframe and the avionics, weapons etc to make it fly (literally and figuratively). Doubly so, since VLO is an area where PAK FA has fallen down. Also, where's the $ going to come from? It sounds as if the PAK FA has been shelved, or at least no mass production so perhaps they'll save some $ there..

There's a Russian fanboy in another thread who linked to a picture of this "Hunter" and offered it up as proof Russia can really procure stealth aircraft. We shall see, but the onus really is on Russia to deliver. PAK FA was strike one. I suppose this and their planned PAK DA are strike 2 and 3, respectively...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 17:35
by zerion
We'll see if it makes it past prototype or not but the Russians haven't had spectacular results of late. The recent deployment of their unmanned tank is a good example.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/july_20 ... syria.html

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 01:51
by project458
mixelflick wrote:It will be interesting to see how (or if) this progresses. Going to take quite a leap for them to couple a truly VLO airframe and the avionics, weapons etc to make it fly (literally and figuratively). Doubly so, since VLO is an area where PAK FA has fallen down. Also, where's the $ going to come from? It sounds as if the PAK FA has been shelved, or at least no mass production so perhaps they'll save some $ there..

There's a Russian fanboy in another thread who linked to a picture of this "Hunter" and offered it up as proof Russia can really procure stealth aircraft. We shall see, but the onus really is on Russia to deliver. PAK FA was strike one. I suppose this and their planned PAK DA are strike 2 and 3, respectively...



Hmm, I guess your talking about me? :D Out of all those programs PAK DA is done deal, because it only has one possible customer, and its not depended any exports and other factors, all of the Russian heavy bombers Tu-95ms, Tu-22MSM, Tu-160, area ageing designs and will have to replaced starting from 2030 on?


SU-57 is not shelved, the Russian defense ministry is waiting for its final engines Object 30 finish its test which will take 3 years, then the mass orders will start.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 19:56
by botsing
project458 wrote:which will take 3 years, then the mass orders will start.

Want to make a bet on this?

BTW, what is "mass orders" for you? Is that like 50 planes?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 03:31
by popcorn
Morre Russian robotic awesomeness... Putin is nodding and seems to like it :devil:


Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 15:07
by vilters
While Russia is playing in 3D apps, the Chinese are spraying their crops with drones.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 18:30
by botsing
popcorn wrote:Morre Russian robotic awesomeness... Putin is nodding and seems to like it :devil:

Auch, that is embarrassing.

Even Putin is looking like "do we really need to put-in this charade?"

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 18:39
by project458
vilters wrote:While Russia is playing in 3D apps, the Chinese are spraying their crops with drones.



Hunter is months away from its first flight, but you can keep on thinking other wise.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 00:37
by project458

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 10:46
by krieger22
Meanwhile, the Chinese have exported theirs... and said export operator has already lost one. https://defence-blog.com/news/saudi-ch- ... yemen.html

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 16:21
by mixelflick
3 years for a brand new engine?

I'll take bets on this. Closer to 10 than 3. And then what? 25 planes? 50? When does the worldwide footprint get established for when it needs to deploy? Weapons separation? New parts of the envelope tested due to new and improved engine?

3 years is a pipe dream for all of this...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 22:18
by project458
This thread is about UAV not maned fighters.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2018, 22:22
by project458
mixelflick wrote:3 years for a brand new engine?

I'll take bets on this. Closer to 10 than 3. And then what? 25 planes? 50? When does the worldwide footprint get established for when it needs to deploy? Weapons separation? New parts of the envelope tested due to new and improved engine?

3 years is a pipe dream for all of this...




Su-57 has been going through ordnance tests for the last three years, I suggest you catch up before trash talking :wink:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2018, 01:06
by Corsair1963
project458 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:3 years for a brand new engine?

I'll take bets on this. Closer to 10 than 3. And then what? 25 planes? 50? When does the worldwide footprint get established for when it needs to deploy? Weapons separation? New parts of the envelope tested due to new and improved engine?

3 years is a pipe dream for all of this...




Su-57 has been going through ordnance tests for the last three years, I suggest you catch up before trash talking :wink:


What about the izdeliye 30???

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2018, 14:19
by mixelflick
project458 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:3 years for a brand new engine?

I'll take bets on this. Closer to 10 than 3. And then what? 25 planes? 50? When does the worldwide footprint get established for when it needs to deploy? Weapons separation? New parts of the envelope tested due to new and improved engine?

3 years is a pipe dream for all of this...




Su-57 has been going through ordnance tests for the last three years, I suggest you catch up before trash talking :wink:


Really?

Those weapons will have to be re-certified once the super duper stage 2 engines are fitted, so add three years for that. Let's do some math.. 3 years for engines (laughable, but we'll use your figures). 3 more years for weapons release with the new engines. We're now up to 2024. How many do you figure they'll order, given your "Hunter" is next? Or the Mig-41 space plane? LOL Or the PAK DA? Or the upgraded TU-160's? Or the new VTOL fighter? Or new ICBM's? Or the Mig-35?

In all probability, the US PCA will be ready before the truly 5th gen PAK FA gets there. That's if they ever reach true 5th gen status. And have the rubles left over after funding all of their other pipe dreams.

MARK MY WORDS: The US will be flying 6th gen prototypes before Russia fields a 5th gen fighter. And again, that's IF they ever get the super-cruise, integrated avionics and stealth up to snuff. There are strong indications that they are struggling in all areas. If they weren't, you'd have at least 100 PAK FA in squadron service today. You don't. You have PLANS for 12.

That's an experiment, not an operational aircraft...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2018, 16:14
by project458
mixelflick wrote:
project458 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:3 years for a brand new engine?

I'll take bets on this. Closer to 10 than 3. And then what? 25 planes? 50? When does the worldwide footprint get established for when it needs to deploy? Weapons separation? New parts of the envelope tested due to new and improved engine?

3 years is a pipe dream for all of this...




Su-57 has been going through ordnance tests for the last three years, I suggest you catch up before trash talking :wink:


Really?

Those weapons will have to be re-certified once the super duper stage 2 engines are fitted, so add three years for that. Let's do some math.. 3 years for engines (laughable, but we'll use your figures). 3 more years for weapons release with the new engines. We're now up to 2024. How many do you figure they'll order, given your "Hunter" is next? Or the Mig-41 space plane? LOL Or the PAK DA? Or the upgraded TU-160's? Or the new VTOL fighter? Or new ICBM's? Or the Mig-35?

In all probability, the US PCA will be ready before the truly 5th gen PAK FA gets there. That's if they ever reach true 5th gen status. And have the rubles left over after funding all of their other pipe dreams.

MARK MY WORDS: The US will be flying 6th gen prototypes before Russia fields a 5th gen fighter. And again, that's IF they ever get the super-cruise, integrated avionics and stealth up to snuff. There are strong indications that they are struggling in all areas. If they weren't, you'd have at least 100 PAK FA in squadron service today. You don't. You have PLANS for 12.

That's an experiment, not an operational aircraft...



Says who?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2018, 16:22
by botsing
project458 wrote:Says who?

Ah that's right indeed, Russians just throws stuff on a plane and call it a day and declare it FOC. :roll:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 03:49
by Corsair1963
It's clear Russia is screwed.... :shock:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 05:48
by project458
botsing wrote:
project458 wrote:Says who?

Ah that's right indeed, Russians just throws stuff on a plane and call it a day and declare it FOC. :roll:



One Su-57 has going through all manner of testing for the last 8 years, two unless you prove Russian aircraft testing procedure is same as US,( hint its not) then all this talk of doing Weapons going through re certification or how the new engine will take 10 years blablablabla etc.. is moot :P

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 12:14
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Really?

Those weapons will have to be re-certified once the super duper stage 2 engines are fitted, so add three years for that.


They didn't do that when they install new engines in Flankers, +130kN Salyut engine, and now +140kN Saturn engine, so why would they need to do weapon testing when they install new engines in Su-57?!?

In fact things are lot easier with Su-57 becuase it carry weapons internally, so maybe they will need to test only external load but I really doubt.

MiG-41? It is just MiG attempt to stay in game because AF doesn't want MiG-35.

IMO MiG-31 replacement will be some Su-57 variant.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 15:41
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Really?

Those weapons will have to be re-certified once the super duper stage 2 engines are fitted, so add three years for that.


They didn't do that when they install new engines in Flankers, +130kN Salyut engine, and now +140kN Saturn engine, so why would they need to do weapon testing when they install new engines in Su-57?!?

In fact things are lot easier with Su-57 becuase it carry weapons internally, so maybe they will need to test only external load but I really doubt.

MiG-41? It is just MiG attempt to stay in game because AF doesn't want MiG-35.

IMO MiG-31 replacement will be some Su-57 variant.


Really.

So qualifying weapons is EASIER when they're jettisoned from an internal weapons bay at supersonic speeds. This is awesome! Because we can just load the 9x into the F-35's weapons bay and call it a day. No need for those pesky weapons separation tests. Works the same at .6 mach as it does at mach 1.6.

Any new missile the Raptor will be firing should be easy too, right? We'll just load it in the bay and cross our fingers when we hit the launch button. Works the same at mach .2 as it does at 2.2. And anywhere from 0 to 9g's.

I stand corrected. The Russians really know how these things work and have min/max envelope weapons testing down. We can even lay the weapons testing people off at China Lake and other facilities. Think of the $ we'll save!!!

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 16:06
by mixelflick
I sure will, but be prepared to eat crow :mrgreen:

You sir, are delusional..

I'm going to eat crow? Listen, how many times have the Russians said the PAK FA will be in squadron service by in (pick a year).. 2013, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. And now 2019. How many times have we heard (with ZERO evidence) "it's going to be a Raptor killer". Now we're hearing about 2nd stage engines being ready in 3 years, etc. The Russians (and by extension, you) have lost ALL credibility.

A dozen pre-production aircraft is not an operational aircraft, by any stretch of the imagination. Not a single nation (not even a banana republic) would claim this. Only Russia, who've constantly been proven wrong on every IOC date they've ever given as a projection. And to top it all off, the only people with inside knowledge of what's really going on with PAK FA (the Indians) quit/pulled out of the project.

But you and others come here to tell us nah, that's not an issue. We're IOC baby, and able to field fully combat capable PAK FA's at a moments notice.

Sure...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 16:22
by project458
mixelflick wrote:I sure will, but be prepared to eat crow :mrgreen:

You sir, are delusional..

I'm going to eat crow? Listen, how many times have the Russians said the PAK FA will be in squadron service by in (pick a year).. 2013, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. And now 2019. How many times have we heard (with ZERO evidence) "it's going to be a Raptor killer". Now we're hearing about 2nd stage engines being ready in 3 years, etc. The Russians (and by extension, you) have lost ALL credibility.

A dozen pre-production aircraft is not an operational aircraft, by any stretch of the imagination. Not a single nation (not even a banana republic) would claim this. Only Russia, who've constantly been proven wrong on every IOC date they've ever given as a projection. And to top it all off, the only people with inside knowledge of what's really going on with PAK FA (the Indians) quit/pulled out of the project.

But you and others come here to tell us nah, that's not an issue. We're IOC baby, and able to field fully combat capable PAK FA's at a moments notice.

Sure...



Thats right, so your prediction about the second stage taking 10 years is rather pointless don't you think?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2018, 18:24
by milosh
@mixelflick

All weapon tests done with Su-57/117 are valid for final Su-57! You don't need to test everything again just because of new engine!

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2018, 08:02
by charlielima223
milosh wrote:@mixelflick

All weapon tests done with Su-57/117 are valid for final Su-57! You don't need to test everything again just because of new engine!


I'm not the most knowledgeable in these kind of things but wouldn't those engines end up changing the flight qualities of the PAKFA, thus significantly changing its flight envelope? Wouldn't that mean that the significant change in flight envelope require additional test and certification for weapons?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2018, 10:12
by milosh
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:@mixelflick

All weapon tests done with Su-57/117 are valid for final Su-57! You don't need to test everything again just because of new engine!


I'm not the most knowledgeable in these kind of things but wouldn't those engines end up changing the flight qualities of the PAKFA, thus significantly changing its flight envelope? Wouldn't that mean that the significant change in flight envelope require additional test and certification for weapons?


Not likely because new engine is for better super cruise that thrust 117 can match but only with AB as I understand.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2018, 16:49
by mixelflick
project458 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I sure will, but be prepared to eat crow :mrgreen:

You sir, are delusional..

I'm going to eat crow? Listen, how many times have the Russians said the PAK FA will be in squadron service by in (pick a year).. 2013, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. And now 2019. How many times have we heard (with ZERO evidence) "it's going to be a Raptor killer". Now we're hearing about 2nd stage engines being ready in 3 years, etc. The Russians (and by extension, you) have lost ALL credibility.

A dozen pre-production aircraft is not an operational aircraft, by any stretch of the imagination. Not a single nation (not even a banana republic) would claim this. Only Russia, who've constantly been proven wrong on every IOC date they've ever given as a projection. And to top it all off, the only people with inside knowledge of what's really going on with PAK FA (the Indians) quit/pulled out of the project.

But you and others come here to tell us nah, that's not an issue. We're IOC baby, and able to field fully combat capable PAK FA's at a moments notice.

Sure...



Thats right, so your prediction about the second stage taking 10 years is rather pointless don't you think?


What on EARTH are you talking about? No credible aeronautical engineer is going to just slap new engines in an aircraft, say the weapons release envelope is "close enough" and call it a day. My prediction that the 2nd stage engines take 10 years is a LOT closer to reality than your 3.

Let me ask you this: If we didn't have any F-22's in service, just a few test birds with F-100 engines... and the UK (who was a major source of funding) bailed out - would you say we have a very successful program? OR, if we came out and stated there will be NO MASS PRODUCTION of the F-22 (even when new engines are ready), would you say we have a very successful program?

Let's say Russia had SU-57's (about 200) in service with a decade of exercises, deployments under its belt - that's a successful program. OR if Russia had hundreds of F-35 like aircraft rolling off its production lines AND in service with its allies - that's a successful program.

But "plans" for TWELVE SU-57's with only a first stage engine certified and dubious stealth qualities... NOT a successful program. NO plans for mass production. Not a successful program. NO participation in exercises, deployments (2 days to Syria hardly qualifies).. not a successful program.

Look man, the onus is on you. It's on you because Russia has given so many IOC dates and missed them its comical. It's on you because they don't have the right engines ready. It's on you because RUSSIA themselves have said NO MASS PRODUCTION.

So when you have a few hundred built, that have been on operational deployments, participating in exercises and yes, combat proven (like the F-22 and F-35 - see Israel), come talk to me. Until then you have an experiment, not a successful program/5th gen stealth fighter..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2018, 17:05
by mixelflick
charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:@mixelflick

All weapon tests done with Su-57/117 are valid for final Su-57! You don't need to test everything again just because of new engine!


I'm not the most knowledgeable in these kind of things but wouldn't those engines end up changing the flight qualities of the PAKFA, thus significantly changing its flight envelope? Wouldn't that mean that the significant change in flight envelope require additional test and certification for weapons?


Of course it does. You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to figure such things out - its common sense. A new engine (regardless of thrust levels as fanboy has tried to tell you) needs to be tested for all sorts of reasons, just one of them being weapons release.

The F-14 and its engines is a great case study in why you just don't slap a new engine in the bird, then say "go fly and fight now boys". In 1981 an alternative engine was tested in the first F-14B, then the designation for a Grumman prototype (BuNo. 157986) with a pair of Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 engines. But after extensive tests with this engine technical difficulties occurred and the engine was rejected. It wasn't until the late 1980's (after a lot more testing) did the F-14 finally get her F-110's.

Did the Russian fanboys here catch that? After EXTENSIVE TESTS this new wonder engine turned out to be not so wonderful. It was back to the drawing board. THAT is why these new engines he's speaking of are going to need many years of testing/airframe integration.

But have no fear, he'll have some absurd answer for this too. We'll just sit back and laugh as the 2019, 2020, 2023 IOC dates keep changing. At this rate they'll have an operational 5th gen fighter about the time we're retiring PCA...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2018, 18:31
by milosh
@mixeflick


I can agree with you new engine could be PITA but that doesn't have much with weapon tests. New engine will not increase cruise speed so if you need to test Su-57 weapon separation on max cruise speed you can do it with 117, only it would need to use AB.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2018, 16:18
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:@mixeflick


I can agree with you new engine could be PITA but that doesn't have much with weapon tests. New engine will not increase cruise speed so if you need to test Su-57 weapon separation on max cruise speed you can do it with 117, only it would need to use AB.


There's no question in my mind that any responsible aerospace engineer would re-certify weapons carriage, release and separation with new engines. New engines will result in changes (likely an increase in vibration) in the airframe, and that extends to the weapons bay. Whether that occurs in military power, afterburner. both or not at all is the only question. And that means testing and how said forces affect (or don't) release of weapons from the internal bay. And remember, this will be at supersonic speeds - leading to big risks for the pilot.

Now you may be right - the Russians just won't do it, believing that everything will be just fine. Or there may be political pressure due to the fact it's already late. This situation has been seen before, but the best example is probably cosmonaut Vladimir Kamarov. Party premier Brezchnev was so intent on doing something big in space, he ordered the mission by X date. Problem being, the Soyouz spacecraft they wanted to use was known to have defects. Kamarov himself was so certain of his death that he requested an open casket funeral, so his handlers could see what they did to him. Predictably, his capsule's parachutes failed to deploy properly, and he slammed into the earth and was incinerated in the resulting fire. This is an example of what can happen, when you fail to test things...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2018, 16:21
by mixelflick
I can agree with you new engine could be PITA but that doesn't have much with weapon tests. New engine will not increase cruise speed so if you need to test Su-57 weapon separation on max cruise speed you can do it with 117, only it would need to use AB.[/quote]

There's no question in my mind that any responsible aerospace engineer would re-certify weapons carriage, release and separation with new engines. New engines will result in changes (likely an increase in vibration) in the airframe, and that extends to the weapons bay. Whether that occurs in military power, afterburner. both or not at all is the only question. And that means testing and how said forces affect (or don't) release of weapons from the internal bay. And remember, this will be at supersonic speeds - leading to big risks for the pilot.

Now you may be right - the Russians just won't do it, believing that everything will be just fine. Or there may be political pressure due to the fact it's already late. This situation has been seen before, but the best example is probably cosmonaut Vladimir Kamarov. Party premier Brezchnev was so intent on doing something big in space, he ordered the mission by X date. Problem being, the Soyouz spacecraft they wanted to use was known to have defects. Kamarov himself was so certain of his death that he requested an open casket funeral, so his handlers could see what they did to him. Predictably, his capsule's parachutes failed to deploy properly, and he slammed into the earth and was incinerated in the resulting fire. This is an example of what can happen, when you fail to test things...

https://i.imgur.com/X0eX4HY.jpg

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2018, 22:17
by project458
Back to topic

First pics and video of the Altius-M in flight, it has 5000 kg take off weight and 20,000 m ceiling and 25 hour endurance, range is classified but should be least 2000km if not more, with this and and Hunters test flight about to start
what ever lead the West has in drones its about to fade away fast :mrgreen:

P.S Flight tests of the Altius-M have been going on for two years, so these pics and video are probably not recent.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W3mS3KE9hY

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3335511.html

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 00:09
by element1loop
Terrifying!

A draggy old turboprop ... 20,000m (65,617 ft) ceiling ... sure! ... why not ... it's fantasy time ... so why not go big? :doh: :mrgreen:

RQ-4 first flight was February 1998.

Image

MQ-4 spec (wiki)
Maximum speed: 357 mph (575 km/h; 310 kn)
Range: 9,436 mi (8,200 nmi; 15,186 km)
Endurance: 30 hours
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 00:51
by knowan
Good to know Russian propaganda will severely exaggerate performance, even for UAVs.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 01:02
by zhangmdev
That is not turboprop. Looks like V12 turbocharged.

http://imgup.nl/images/2017/04/21/JneAW-800.jpg

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 01:08
by element1loop
You're right! No exhaust horns!

Ah, so 20,000 m was the 'typo' ... it was supposed to be 20,000 ft. :mrgreen:

I hope they're using unleaded in that thing .... :lmao:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 03:28
by knowan
http://www.deagel.com/Support-Aircraft/ ... 61001.aspx
The Altius or Altius-M is a medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)


This is what is required to reach 20000 meters with props:
Image

The Altius-M definitely can't reach 20000 meters; this is a textbook example of Russian propaganda exaggerating performance of their military products once again.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 03:55
by project458
Those who doubt that fact Altius-M can reach 20,000 m, just don't know how big Altius really is , but I will give you a clue :D

Thats a Tu-214 next to it by the way.

Image

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 04:04
by project458
zhangmdev wrote:That is not turboprop. Looks like V12 turbocharged.

http://imgup.nl/images/2017/04/21/JneAW-800.jpg


The engines will be upgraded in future, the program is barely 7 years old, there are a few more years of development left before its ready for the Military, and in the mean time Russia will continue to launch more military communication satellites, which means by 2022 Russia can deploy drones globally the US does with Global Hawk and RQ-170 !

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 04:24
by project458
Whole family of guided weapons being developed for UAV/UCAV strikes in the future.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 12:31
by knowan

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 14:18
by element1loop
knowan wrote:https://southfront.org/russias-altius-m-heavy-uav/

maximum altitude of 12km


Turbos could get it to 30 K feet just, but it would wheeze to get to 39k feet if at all. Maybe with 5% fuel remaining it could struggle to get close to that, eventually, but it would be empty of payload and just about out of juice to do it. Oh, and that link claims it's a "heavy-UAV". The next thing is its miserable available payload and viable range, and high-drag design.

One wonders why they couldn't manage a low-drag single-engine airframe design?

Yeah, I think we all know the answer to that.

project458 wrote: First pics and video of the Altius-M in flight, it has 5000 kg take off weight ...


Good luck with simultaneous useful payload, and useful range.

project458 wrote: The engines will be upgraded in future, the program is barely 7 years old, there are a few more years of development left …


oh right, the non-existent engine thing once again. “Seven years” of development and they couldn’t sort out a PT6-ski? Another lame excuse for having nothing ready to go once more. As for the US/West having only an alleged “small” and temporary lead over Russia in UAVs and UCAV tech you really are well beyond clinically delusional as someone else already suggested.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 14:43
by element1loop
project458 wrote:Those who doubt that fact Altius-M can reach 20,000 m, just don't know how big Altius really is , but I will give you a clue :D

Thats a Tu-214 next to it by the way.

Image



Really? Where are the engines? I blew your image by 400% and no engines, no visible shadows cast by engines and no stinger present, plus no V-tail. Whatever that is it isn't an 'Altius-M', it appears to be just a regular glider.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2018, 19:15
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:Terrifying!

A draggy old turboprop ... 20,000m (65,617 ft) ceiling ... sure! ... why not ... it's fantasy time ... so why not go big? :doh: :mrgreen:


Ahem...

"In 1989, the Condor set the world piston-powered aircraft altitude record of 67,028 ft (20,430 m) and was the first aircraft to fly a fully automated flight from takeoff to landing and also setting an unofficial endurance world record in 1988 by flying continuously for more than 50 hours; the flight was not ratified by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) and is therefore not considered an official record.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Condor

condor_hero.jpg




:wink:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 02:11
by knowan
Altius-M is claimed to be using German Red A03 V12 engines.

Interesting bit about those engines:
Image

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 02:35
by firebase99
This is getting embarrassing.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 04:10
by element1loop


:doh: OK, I admit it, Boeing engineers really know their sh*t. :mrgreen:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 04:45
by element1loop
project458 wrote:You will be when the Okhotnik-B ( Hunter-B ) fly's in a couple of months :) but like I said before enjoy your small lead in UAV/UCAV, we'll it lasts.



Will it have an engine, perchance?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 08:51
by gideonic
element1loop wrote:
project458 wrote:You will be when the Okhotnik-B ( Hunter-B ) fly's in a couple of months :) but like I said before enjoy your small lead in UAV/UCAV, we'll it lasts.

Will it have an engine, perchance?

I love KGBs logic how a first flight of a drone somehow immediately erases all shortcomings. Following the same logic:

UK Flew Taranis in 2013. That must mean that it has all the stealth and 6th gen tech since then! Cancel that ancient-tech F-35 order immediately!

The same with engines. Russia finally flies an engine with claimed thrust in similar class to the F119, over 20 years later than F-22 did it's first flight (never mind the ATF competition earlier, where prototype engines flew) ... "Breaking news: Engine gap closed!" No need to get it to production and in service. No need to compare it to current US developments ...

By the time Russia gets Izdeliye-30 equipped Su-57's into service in any meaningful numbers US will already be frighteningly close to having Variable Cycle Engines in the air

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 09:29
by element1loop
Programs KGB highlights as great successes would get axed in the West before the end of the working day, and inquiries made as to who was responsible for that?

Northrop Grumman X-47B ... just another advanced drone design that was likewise discarded.

Image

We're spoiled for choices.

UK Taranis (note the bomb bay)

Image

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 13:56
by sferrin
And let's not forget the Boeing Phantom Ray.

32987.jpg



Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 14:35
by babybat{}.net
Official information:
Image

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 15:07
by project458
element1loop wrote:
project458 wrote:You will be when the Okhotnik-B ( Hunter-B ) fly's in a couple of months :) but like I said before enjoy your small lead in UAV/UCAV, we'll it lasts.



Will it have an engine, perchance?



Well if you see it flying, I think you can put 2 and 2 together :D

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 15:15
by project458
element1loop wrote:Programs KGB highlights as great successes would get axed in the West before the end of the working day, and inquiries made as to who was responsible for that?

Northrop Grumman X-47B ... just another advanced drone design that was likewise discarded.

UK Taranis (note the bomb bay)

Image



Here is the main difference between Russian and Western aircraft development, Russia most of the time skips proof of concept or demonstrator phase and goes straight for the prototypes.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 15:20
by sferrin
project458 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Programs KGB highlights as great successes would get axed in the West before the end of the working day, and inquiries made as to who was responsible for that?

Northrop Grumman X-47B ... just another advanced drone design that was likewise discarded.

UK Taranis (note the bomb bay)

Image



Here is the main difference between Russian and Western aircraft development, Russia most of the time skips proof of concept or demonstrator phase and goes straight for the prototypes.


So were the Mig 1.44 and Su-47 Berkut prototypes?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 21:15
by project458
sferrin wrote:
project458 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Programs KGB highlights as great successes would get axed in the West before the end of the working day, and inquiries made as to who was responsible for that?

Northrop Grumman X-47B ... just another advanced drone design that was likewise discarded.

UK Taranis (note the bomb bay)

Image



Here is the main difference between Russian and Western aircraft development, Russia most of the time skips proof of concept or demonstrator phase and goes straight for the prototypes.


So were the Mig 1.44 and Su-47 Berkut prototypes?


I did say," most of the time", and Mig-1.44 and Su-47 are the exception rather than the norm.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 21:20
by project458
element1loop wrote:
knowan wrote:https://southfront.org/russias-altius-m-heavy-uav/

maximum altitude of 12km


Turbos could get it to 30 K feet just, but it would wheeze to get to 39k feet if at all. Maybe with 5% fuel remaining it could struggle to get close to that, eventually, but it would be empty of payload and just about out of juice to do it. Oh, and that link claims it's a "heavy-UAV". The next thing is its miserable available payload and viable range, and high-drag design.

One wonders why they couldn't manage a low-drag single-engine airframe design?

Yeah, I think we all know the answer to that.

project458 wrote: First pics and video of the Altius-M in flight, it has 5000 kg take off weight ...





Good luck with simultaneous useful payload, and useful range.

project458 wrote: The engines will be upgraded in future, the program is barely 7 years old, there are a few more years of development left …


oh right, the non-existent engine thing once again. “Seven years” of development and they couldn’t sort out a PT6-ski? Another lame excuse for having nothing ready to go once more. As for the US/West having only an alleged “small” and temporary lead over Russia in UAVs and UCAV tech you really are well beyond clinically delusional as someone else already suggested.



You call 2 two tons of payload low for a UAV? :| Thats more than the Reaper ?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2018, 08:08
by element1loop
project458 wrote:You call 2 two tons of payload low for a UAV? :| Thats more than the Reaper ?



We only have your highly-unreliable assertions to go by as to Altius-M's wholely imaginary payload. And it may never become operational, but given it's Russia it just might get there as they operate all sorts of outmoded junk. And we sure can't, don't and won't be trusting any official Russian claims as you so glibly seem to, as they're notoriously hyped and wildly optimistic, typically over-promising and characteristically hopelessly under-delivering, if anything is delivered at all.

But besides that, the 'Altius-M' contraption is claimed to be a "Heavy UAV" so you'd naturally expect it to have a hefty payload, plus outstanding altitude range and radius performances--like say, an MQ-4 for instance.

Whereas according to you the Altius-M will have a range of ~2,000 km, and it's now been independently established that the current engines are certified for a maximum altitude of 25K ft which is comparatively pitiful altitude for what claims to be a "Heavy UAV", in 2018.

But then you claim there's another engine coming ... oh, you just wait! ... you'll all see! :lmao:

And you then compare it to a Reaper, which is not a "Heavy UAV", it's just a fairly small, light tactical UCAV, which has phenomenal payload, altitude and range performances, and can perform ISR, targeting or BDA, while delivering LGBs to regional ranges, day after day, and can keep doing that for as long as you like. Under FAA certification regulations anything less than 12,500 lbs falls within the category of "Light Aircraft".

Reaper maximum takeoff weight: 10,494 lb

Reaper alone puts the wondrous Altius-M to shame.

Image
Image

But those two now aging US drone families have just a small and temporary technical and performance edge over the new you-beaut Russian HALE super-duper drones! ... which are just months away! ... ... no, really! ... :mrgreen:


Dude, that's one whole lot of nuthin' burger.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2018, 14:16
by project458
element1loop wrote:
project458 wrote:You call 2 two tons of payload low for a UAV? :| Thats more than the Reaper ?



We only have your highly-unreliable assertions to go by as to Altius-M's wholely imaginary payload. And it may never become operational, but given it's Russia it just might get there as they operate all sorts of outmoded junk. And we sure can't, don't and won't be trusting any official Russian claims as you so glibly seem to, as they're notoriously hyped and wildly optimistic, typically over-promising and characteristically hopelessly under-delivering, if anything is delivered at all.

But besides that, the 'Altius-M' contraption is claimed to be a "Heavy UAV" so you'd naturally expect it to have a hefty payload, plus outstanding altitude range and radius performances--like say, an MQ-4 for instance.

Whereas [b]according to you the Altius-M will have a range of ~2,000 km, and it's now been independently established that the current engines are certified for a maximum altitude of 25K ft which is comparatively pitiful altitude for what claims to be a "Heavy UAV", in 2018. [/b]

But then you claim there's another engine coming ... oh, you just wait! ... you'll all see! :lmao:

And you then compare it to a Reaper, which is not a "Heavy UAV", it's just a fairly small, light tactical UCAV, which has phenomenal payload, altitude and range performances, and can perform ISR, targeting or BDA, while delivering LGBs to regional ranges, day after day, and can keep doing that for as long as you like. Under FAA certification regulations anything less than 12,500 lbs falls within the category of "Light Aircraft".

Reaper maximum takeoff weight: 10,494 lb

Reaper alone puts the wondrous Altius-M to shame.

Image
Image

But those two now aging US drone families have just a small and temporary technical and performance edge over the new you-beaut Russian HALE super-duper drones! ... which are just months away! ... ... no, really! ... :mrgreen:


Dude, that's one whole lot of nuthin' burger.




First, 2000km will be the absolute minimum range for the Altius-M, its real range will be a lot more.

Two, FAA regulations don't mean sh*t to Russia

Three, Reaper is overrated :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvPAUo6kTyU

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... over-yemen

If foot flop wearing malnourished Yemen rebels can do that, just imagine what the Russian Military can do, oh wait no need to imagine

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/r ... ia-n863931

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2018, 14:41
by babybat{}.net
element1loop wrote:Whereas according to you the Altius-M will have a range of ~2,000 km,

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2018, 16:50
by mixelflick
This thread is amusing, like many of Russia's "breakthroughs" and associate IOC dates.

But I will say this: They would be better served to try and develop an unmanned UAV for air to air combat, vs. pouring more rubles down the PAK FA hole (I refuse to refer to it as the SU-57, which is an operational designation). That project has faltered badly, and by the time they get the right engines in it etc, it'll be hopelessly outclassed by updated Raptors and F-35's.

They are so far behind, they have to try the hail mary and although it's a longshot the alternative is grim: Continuing to pump out 4th gen Flankers in a 5th gen world.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2018, 22:26
by project458
mixelflick wrote:This thread is amusing, like many of Russia's "breakthroughs" and associate IOC dates.

But I will say this: They would be better served to try and develop an unmanned UAV for air to air combat, vs. pouring more rubles down the PAK FA hole (I refuse to refer to it as the SU-57, which is an operational designation). That project has faltered badly, and by the time they get the right engines in it etc, it'll be hopelessly outclassed by updated Raptors and F-35's.




Ha, more predictions from the guy who still thinks Su-35 ans Su-57 share the same Avionics and Engines lol


They are so far behind, they have to try the hail mary and although it's a longshot the alternative is grim: Continuing to pump out 4th gen Flankers in a 5th gen world.


Russian air force is always getting new aircraft, just this month 3 new Su-30SM and 3 Su-34

Compare the Russian Air force of 2008 when the modernization started and now its like day and night, back then it had trouble hitting targets in Georgia in daylight and now its dropping glonass guided bombs at night in Syria 2000km from away from Russia border, and in a another 10 years their will be similar jump in capabilities, which include a couple squadrons of Su-57.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2018, 00:21
by mixelflick
project458 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This thread is amusing, like many of Russia's "breakthroughs" and associate IOC dates.

But I will say this: They would be better served to try and develop an unmanned UAV for air to air combat, vs. pouring more rubles down the PAK FA hole (I refuse to refer to it as the SU-57, which is an operational designation). That project has faltered badly, and by the time they get the right engines in it etc, it'll be hopelessly outclassed by updated Raptors and F-35's.



They are so far behind, they have to try the hail mary and although it's a longshot the alternative is grim: Continuing to pump out 4th gen Flankers in a 5th gen world.


Russian air force is always getting new aircraft, just this month 3 new Su-30SM and 3 Su-34

Thanks so much for making my point!

Compare the Russian Air force of 2008 when the modernization started and now its like day and night, back then it had trouble hitting targets in Georgia in daylight and now its dropping glonass guided bombs at night in Syria 2000km from away from Russia border, and in a another 10 years their will be similar jump in capabilities, which include a couple squadrons of Su-57.


You know what? You're right! It's like they've gone from the 1980's to the 1990's! And what's this you say? A couple of squadrons of SU-57's in another 10 years? Bravo! Well done my man. You really did drive the point home: Russia is really movin' and shakin' in the biz of combat aircraft.

When can we expect you'll announce you have the internet on your cell phone?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2018, 18:24
by element1loop
As I remember the Su35 can do anything required by RuAF, so Su57 was deemed surplus to requirements until later in the century, when the West finally catches up to Su35 and manages to compete with it. Su57 is described as a 'trump card', to ensure Russia will not lose control of the air. So you only need almost but not quite none of them.

… As you know, our Su-35 is among the best aircraft in the world. Because of that there is little reason to rush the work toward mass-producing a fifth generation aircraft. This is our trump card which we can always play should the previous generation start falling behind their equivalents from leading world countries. - Yuri Borisov

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5340291


It appears RuAF have out-schmarted everyone.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2018, 08:10
by babybat{}.net
element1loop wrote:As I remember the Su35 can do anything required by RuAF, so Su57 was deemed surplus to requirements until later in the century, when the West finally catches up to Su35 and manages to compete with it. Su57 is described as a 'trump card', to ensure Russia will not lose control of the air. So you only need almost but not quite none of them.


The main task of the pak-fa program was the preservation of competences and the design and engineering school. This task was successfully completed. As an example - the collective could create a black wing for the ms-21, a unique control system for the okhotnik-b, an integrated modular avionics for advanced vehicles, etc.
Without a pak-fa program it would not be possible anymore.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2018, 10:07
by popcorn
babybat{}.net wrote:
element1loop wrote:As I remember the Su35 can do anything required by RuAF, so Su57 was deemed surplus to requirements until later in the century, when the West finally catches up to Su35 and manages to compete with it. Su57 is described as a 'trump card', to ensure Russia will not lose control of the air. So you only need almost but not quite none of them.


The main task of the pak-fa program was the preservation of competences and the design and engineering school. This task was successfully completed. As an example - the collective could create a black wing for the ms-21, a unique control system for the okhotnik-b, an integrated modular avionics for advanced vehicles, etc.
Without a pak-fa program it would not be possible anymore.

Glad you cleared that up. Our mistake for thinking they might actually be trying to build a 5gen jet and not just practice some new skills. :devil:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2018, 14:58
by mixelflick
babybat{}.net wrote:
element1loop wrote:As I remember the Su35 can do anything required by RuAF, so Su57 was deemed surplus to requirements until later in the century, when the West finally catches up to Su35 and manages to compete with it. Su57 is described as a 'trump card', to ensure Russia will not lose control of the air. So you only need almost but not quite none of them.


The main task of the pak-fa program was the preservation of competences and the design and engineering school. This task was successfully completed. As an example - the collective could create a black wing for the ms-21, a unique control system for the okhotnik-b, an integrated modular avionics for advanced vehicles, etc.

This is just awesome...

The spin just never ends in Russia, does it? Can you tell us why Russia started building a super carrier then stopped? Was that to "preserve competencies and the design and engineering school of Russian naval shipyards?

If the Russians succeeded with the PAK FA, they'd be building at least a hundred SU-57's. As it stands, a dozen (or maybe 15) are on order. I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is an experiment, not an operationally deployed combat aircraft...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 09:06
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:The spin just never ends in Russia, does it? Can you tell us why Russia started building a super carrier then stopped? Was that to "preserve competencies and the design and engineering school of Russian naval shipyards?


You're confusing something. Russia has never started the construction of aircraft carriers. The shipyard, where the first Soviet super carrier was founded, is located in Nikolaev, Ukraine.

mixelflick wrote:If the Russians succeeded with the PAK FA, they'd be building at least a hundred SU-57's. As it stands, a dozen (or maybe 15) are on order.


In Russia, do not let in a series of aircraft that have not passed the full cycle of tests. Initially, a pilot batch is being built for transfer to the Lipetsk aviation center, where the development and implementation of methods of combat use of aviation complexes is being carried out. By results of tests, and after elimination of shortcomings, the decision on their acceptance on combat duty is made.

mixelflick wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is an experiment, not an operationally deployed combat aircraft...


You're wrong. The experimental aircraft was the su-47. Su-57 stage 1 is a prototype of perspective complex of front-line aviation.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 09:10
by babybat{}.net
popcorn wrote:Glad you cleared that up. Our mistake for thinking they might actually be trying to build a 5gen jet and not just practice some new skills. :devil:


In Russia are clearly understand that it is impossible to jump over generation.
Without bringing to the serial appearance of the 5th generation and the adoption of at least a few dozen fighters, it will not be possible to move to the 6th generation. Competence and experience cannot come from nowhere.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 09:17
by popcorn
babybat{}.net wrote:
popcorn wrote:Glad you cleared that up. Our mistake for thinking they might actually be trying to build a 5gen jet and not just practice some new skills. :devil:


In Russia are clearly understand that it is impossible to jump over generation.
Without bringing to the serial appearance of the 5th generation and the adoption of at least a few dozen fighters, it will not be possible to move to the 6th generation. Competence and experience cannot come from nowhere.

But....but...but... what about the 6gen jet that's coming out next? :devil:

..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 12:34
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:
popcorn wrote:Glad you cleared that up. Our mistake for thinking they might actually be trying to build a 5gen jet and not just practice some new skills. :devil:


In Russia are clearly understand that it is impossible to jump over generation.
Without bringing to the serial appearance of the 5th generation and the adoption of at least a few dozen fighters, it will not be possible to move to the 6th generation. Competence and experience cannot come from nowhere.

But....but...but... what about the 6gen jet that's coming out next? :devil:

..


Settle Pop, you're 50 years early. :mrgreen:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 13:49
by babybat{}.net
popcorn wrote:But....but...but... what about the 6gen jet that's coming out next? :devil:


Unfortunately, I have no right to provide any information(
Appearance will be declassified after the first flight, but some information you get much earlier. I think that in 5-7 years it will be possible to conduct some discussions on this topic

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 13:52
by mixelflick
You're confusing something. Russia has never started the construction of aircraft carriers. The shipyard, where the first Soviet super carrier was founded, is located in Nikolaev, Ukraine.

OK. And what type of fighters were going to fly from it? From all available sources, it was to be Mig-29k's. See, when there are red stars on the wings it doesn't matter where it was built..

mixelflick wrote:If the Russians succeeded with the PAK FA, they'd be building at least a hundred SU-57's. As it stands, a dozen (or maybe 15) are on order.


In Russia, do not let in a series of aircraft that have not passed the full cycle of tests. Initially, a pilot batch is being built for transfer to the Lipetsk aviation center, where the development and implementation of methods of combat use of aviation complexes is being carried out. By results of tests, and after elimination of shortcomings, the decision on their acceptance on combat duty is made

How does series production differ from mass production? We've been told by posters here there'd be SU-57's rolling off production lines soon. Yet the Russian gov't issued a press release stating there will be NO mass production, and in fact they'd be skipping to the 6th gen fighter.

mixelflick wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is an experiment, not an operationally deployed combat aircraft...


You're wrong. The experimental aircraft was the su-47. Su-57 stage 1 is a prototype of perspective complex of front-line aviation.[/quote]

When you fail to mass produce a fighter, it was an experiment. PAK FA's experiment just got a little further along than the Mig I.44. Russian aviation is littered with such experiments, most of which have birds roosting in their rotting airframes today. Put it this way: There's a lot better chance PAK FA will wind up in a museum, vs. equipping front line Russian units and replacing Flankers (which offer about 90% of the capability, for a much lower price)..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 14:44
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:OK. And what type of fighters were going to fly from it? From all available sources, it was to be Mig-29k's. See, when there are red stars on the wings it doesn't matter where it was built.


The su-33m and mig-29km fighters were planned,

Image

followed by replacement with a promising low-observed fighter based on the su-27km project

Image

and Yak-44RDL AWACS

Image

mixelflick wrote:How does series production differ from mass production? We've been told by posters here there'd be SU-57's rolling off production lines soon. Yet the Russian gov't issued a press release stating there will be NO mass production, and in fact they'd be skipping to the 6th gen fighter.


I'll try to explain.
Initially, it was planned to purchase 200-250 units. But due to the shift of the program terms by a several years to the right, the number is likely to be reduced to 96 units, and the released resources will be used to fine-tune okhotnik-b and some other promising programs.

mixelflick wrote:When you fail to mass produce a fighter, it was an experiment. PAK FA's experiment just got a little further along than the Mig I.44.


Sorry, but funny to read this)
If would you knew on how stillborn was 1.44 project, you would laughed too)

mixelflick wrote:Russian aviation is littered with such experiments, most of which have birds roosting in their rotting airframes today.


:shock: :shock: Can you show me at least one such experiments? 1.44 - was stillborn 4+ gen prototype, s-37 was NAVY fighter technology demonstrator, more about any extant to the stage of the prototype in Russia have not heard. Maybe you have some unique information?

mixelflick wrote:Put it this way: There's a lot better chance PAK FA will wind up in a museum, vs. equipping front line Russian units and replacing Flankers


Just be patient, the first contract for 12 aircraft will be followed by the next for 24 or 48, but the stage 2.

mixelflick wrote:(which offer about 90% of the capability, for a much lower price)..


Sorry, but you don't know the capabilities of su-57, it is a secret information.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 15:18
by popcorn
babybat{}.net wrote:
popcorn wrote:But....but...but... what about the 6gen jet that's coming out next? :devil:


Unfortunately, I have no right to provide any information(
Appearance will be declassified after the first flight, but some information you get much earlier. I think that in 5-7 years it will be possible to conduct some discussions on this topic

Good luck finding the "competence and experience™ in 5-7 years then...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 16:41
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:Unfortunately, I have no right to provide any information(
Appearance will be declassified after the first flight, but some information you get much earlier. I think that in 5-7 years it will be possible to conduct some discussions on this topic


Ah, the old 'imply you have access to classified information to appear credible on an internet forum' trick.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 14:50
by mixelflick
Nice pic of that carrier, proves my point nicely. See the red stars on those wings? It's Russian, doesn't matter where its built. It's carrying Russian aircraft. Speaking of which, the SU-33 is already a 20 year old design. I know of no plans to update/modernize it. Perhaps you do. If so, please share.

BTW, where's the navalised PAK FA that we've been told is in the pipeline? LOL

I may not have classified info on the PAK FA, but India does/did. And they pulled out of the program. What does this say? That it's an incredibly capable world beater, so advanced beyond the SU-35 they.... won't be mass producing it? Something doesn't add up, and you can't reconcile both points of view.

Projects in the USSR that went nowhere? Sure...

YAK 141
VTOL Mig-21
Berkut
Mig I.44
Buran
Caspian Sea Monster (my personal favorite)
All sitting in museums and/or rotting in fields

Shall I keep going?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 16:52
by element1loop
Image

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2018, 22:36
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:Nice pic of that carrier, proves my point nicely. See the red stars on those wings?


Soviet AF and Russian ASF had a different stars..
Image

mixelflick wrote:It's Russian, doesn't matter where its built.


It was never built. The ship was dismantled on the slipway by order of the Prime Minister of independent Ukraine in 1992.

Image

mixelflick wrote:Speaking of which, the SU-33 is already a 20 year old design. I know of no plans to update/modernize it. Perhaps you do. If so, please share.


It was a Soviet project. In connection with the collapse of the USSR, the program was closed, like all other aircraft carrier programs.

Partial modernization of the su-33 was held a few years ago under the program Gefest.

Image

mixelflick wrote:BTW, where's the navalised PAK FA that we've been told is in the pipeline? LOL


There are no plans to build aircraft carriers in Russia for the next 10 years. Accordingly, work on the creation of the navy version of the su-57 is also not conducted.

mixelflick wrote:I may not have classified info on the PAK FA, but India does/did. And they pulled out of the program. What does this say? That it's an incredibly capable world beater, so advanced beyond the SU-35 they.... won't be mass producing it? Something doesn't add up, and you can't reconcile both points of view.


India is also not interested in the su-35 programme. So it has nothing to do with comparing the capabilities of the su-35 and su-57.

mixelflick wrote:Projects in the USSR that went nowhere? Sure...


Russia and the USSR are different countries with different economic and production capabilities.

mixelflick wrote:YAK 141


The program was closed in connection with the cancellation of the carriers under them - 1143, 1143.2, 1143.3 and 1143.4.

mixelflick wrote:VTOL Mig-21


It was an experimental machine for testing solutions, which were subsequently applied to the Yak-38

mixelflick wrote:Berkut


As I wrote earlier, it was a program to develop a navy fighter. In connection with the elimination of the aircraft carier program, the machine was used as a flying laboratory.

Image


mixelflick wrote:Mig I.44


About this machine I wrote in a previous post. Originally a stillborn project.

mixelflick wrote:Buran


It is a separate topic for discussion. Very long discussion)
It was part of soviet star wars project, that died with USSR.


mixelflick wrote:Caspian Sea Monster (my personal favorite)


Despite its size, it is only an experimental device. The name of the KM does not mean the Caspian monster ("Kaspiyskiy Monster"), but the ship-mockup ("Korablj-Maket"). On the basis of tests developed a prototype combat ekranoplane "Lunj".

Image

However, due to the development of new radiolocations algorithms, it became possible to detect low-flying targets at a considerable distance and the program was closed. Perspective seen for new 3M+ class supersonic anti-ship missiles air and ship-based with active "stealth" system and hypersonic missiles.

mixelflick wrote:Shall I keep going?


All of the examples you gave, with the exception of 1.44, were not programs to create a main land-based fighter. And 1.44 was only a technology demonstrator. The prototype of the fighter was to be the project 1.42, and serial fighter was to be 1.46, the further development of which we see in the form of j-20.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2018, 23:28
by juretrn
"Caspian Sea Monster" is a name given by the CIA when they saw the thing in spysat photos as they had no official Soviet designation to go by.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 12:07
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:When you fail to mass produce a fighter, it was an experiment. PAK FA's experiment just got a little further along than the Mig I.44. Russian aviation is littered with such experiments, most of which have birds roosting in their rotting airframes today. Put it this way: There's a lot better chance PAK FA will wind up in a museum, vs. equipping front line Russian units and replacing Flankers (which offer about 90% of the capability, for a much lower price)..


So Su-35 with PESA radar without useful super cruise capability and with MUCH higher RCS is 90% of Su-57?

But I agree with you Su-57 will not replace Su-27, that is Su-35 role. Su-57 is probable MiG-31 replacement, it doesn't have MiG-31 top speed but everything else it do much better, plus it is lot smaller target and it is multi role fighter not just interceptor.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 16:23
by mixelflick
You are playing games with words babybat, and you know it..

"India is also not interested in the su-35 programme. So it has nothing to do with comparing the capabilities of the su-35 and su-57."

You left out the TINY detail that India was INVESTING in the SU-57, and they've been briefed multiple times as to its capabilities. The Indians cited shoddy workmanship, an inferior engine and less than acceptable stealth (among other things) for pulling out. Of course they have no interest in the SU-35, they already fly an advanced Flanker derivative - the SU-30MKI. And perhaps because of that, they have no interest in the SU-35 (reasons like less than reliable engines and high lifecycle costs that tend to offset a lower sticker price vs. western jets).

My God man, where does the spin end? Why can't you just admit the PAK FA didn't materialize as the Russians hoped? It's pretty clear to any objective outside observer it's going nowhere fast. You gave it a good go, OK? Beautiful airframe I'll give you that. But a solid airframe and some airshow tricks does not a 5th gen fighter make. The rest of your examples are similar - playing games with words.

It's sad but mildly amusing. Less so however, every time you go through this "but, but, but..." exercise...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 06:10
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:You are playing games with words babybat, and you know it..


I wasn't even going to. Sorry about that.

mixelflick wrote:You left out the TINY detail that India was INVESTING in the SU-57, and they've been briefed multiple times as to its capabilities. The Indians cited shoddy workmanship, an inferior engine and less than acceptable stealth (among other things) for pulling out.


Only Su-57 stage 1 capabilities.
Even in open sources there was information about which prototype of the PAK-FA was to be sent to India as a prototype of the FGFA.
Russia tried to sell su-57 stage 1 to India as FGFA, and the received finances were directed to the implementation of the stage 2 program for its own ASF. India was not satisfied with this and as a result withdrew from the program at this stage, but the auction continues and perhaps it will be able to convince the Russian leadership to join the program at stage 2. (and perhaps not because of pressure on Russia from China).

mixelflick wrote:Of course they have no interest in the SU-35, they already fly an advanced Flanker derivative - the SU-30MKI. And perhaps because of that, they have no interest in the SU-35 (reasons like less than reliable engines and high lifecycle costs that tend to offset a lower sticker price vs. western jets).


However, the PRC, which has a huge number of different modifications of flankers, has purchased a number of su-35, and negotiations are underway on the next contract. You can add this to your thinking logic.

mixelflick wrote:My God man, where does the spin end? Why can't you just admit the PAK FA didn't materialize as the Russians hoped?


Because it's not true.
You claim that the su-57 will only be in museums, but I know that after passing the test cycle in Lipetsk, the fighter will go into service. Work is already underway to prepare the home base airfields. From open sources, you can even find out specific air bases.
Of course, due to the difficulties in the implementation of the program, the termination of financing from India and, accordingly, the shift to the right of the implementation dates, the number of purchased aircraft will be reduced from the initial 200-250 to 96. I already wrote about it

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 18:00
by mixelflick
mixelflick wrote:
Of course they have no interest in the SU-35, they already fly an advanced Flanker derivative - the SU-30MKI. And perhaps because of that, they have no interest in the SU-35 (reasons like less than reliable engines and high lifecycle costs that tend to offset a lower sticker price vs. western jets).

However, the PRC, which has a huge number of different modifications of flankers, has purchased a number of su-35, and negotiations are underway on the next contract. You can add this to your thinking logic.

Everyone knows why they're buying the SU-35 - to copy its engine. It isn't because they're so enthralled with the Flanker airframe or its capabilities. If they were, why bother with the J-20 or J-31? They're clearly investing much more heavily in those, vs. buying more Flankers. They have what, 24 on order? Doubtful they'll invest much more, especially given the developmental costs of their 5th gen fighters.

So they're building 96 SU-57? Where are you getting that #?, as the only firm orders we've seen are for... 12. Even if they do build 96, they're going to be outrageously expensive - and Russia (like the US) will be tempted to ax it. That's if the 96 are real in the first place. For the sake of the people working on it, I actually hope you're right. It'll probably take export orders though to make this happen, and with such a small production run - they ain't going to be cheap.

However, I think its much more likely that they'll keep building SU-30SM's and SU-35's in dribs and drabs. They best hope one of those isn't lost to an F-22 or 35 (or God forbid an F-15 or 16), because then their export potential will be where the Mig-29's is today - in the toilet. Fine aircraft, but keeps getting reduced to hair, teeth, spare parts and eyeballs whenever encountering American jets.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 18:18
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:mixelflick wrote:
Of course they have no interest in the SU-35, they already fly an advanced Flanker derivative - the SU-30MKI. And perhaps because of that, they have no interest in the SU-35 (reasons like less than reliable engines and high lifecycle costs that tend to offset a lower sticker price vs. western jets).


Su-35 is offered to Indians for new tender which is third tender I think they have in last two decade. Su-35 wasn't offered on second tender because they had max take off weight requirement and didn't had AESA radar both things were requirements.

Reason to get Su-35 is capability,price, logistic (massive Su-30 fleet) and it can carry Brahmos (very improtant missile for Indians). It can carry one big Brahmos or three smaller ones. Rafale or MiG-29 can carry only one smaller.

mixelflick wrote:So they're building 96 SU-57? Where are you getting that #?, as the only firm orders I'm aware of are for... 12. Even if they do build 96, they're going to be outrageously expensive - and Russia (like the US) will be tempted to ax it. That's if the 96 are real in the first place.


Not now but in 2020s, big order is waiting new engine. If it doesn't deliver how knows. And as I said earlier they need MiG-31 replacement.

It is much cheaper to buy Su-57 then to invest in MiG-31 production (it doesn't exist) and modernisation (new sensors), plus you get much smaller target then MiG-31 is. Very imporatant with B-21 which could be armed with AAMs.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 18:58
by firebase99
Cool, lets all revisit this thread in ten years and count all the SU-57's on the flight line. 12. 10 that fly. Yawn.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 19:07
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:Everyone knows why they're buying the SU-35 - to copy its engine. It isn't because they're so enthralled with the Flanker airframe or its capabilities. If they were, why bother with the J-20 or J-31? They're clearly investing much more heavily in those, vs. buying more Flankers. They have what, 24 on order? Doubtful they'll invest much more, especially given the developmental costs of their 5th gen fighters.


Unfortunately, the 117S engine is not so good that it would be for the sake of a two-billion contract(
Of course, its researching will give some useful information, but this is not the only reason.
First of all, the su-35 is a well-balanced aviation complex for good price. He certainly will not be purchased by PRC in large quantities, but we can expect a contract for another 24 units.

mixelflick wrote:So they're building 96 SU-57? Where are you getting that #?, as the only firm orders we've seen are for... 12.


These 12 are not among them. Only the last 2 of them will have the appearance of the second stage. And it is after their tests the first contract will be signed. I don't think we should expect that before 2023.
This information is not classified, but unfortunately I can not tell the name of the person from whom it was received(

mixelflick wrote:Even if they do build 96, they're going to be outrageously expensive - and Russia (like the US) will be tempted to ax it. That's if the 96 are real in the first place. For the sake of the people working on it, I actually hope you're right. It'll probably take export orders though to make this happen, and with such a small production run - they ain't going to be cheap.


You're right. This program is very expensive. And hopes that India will cover part of the development costs were not justified.
But, as I said earlier, it is necessary to preserve the competencies and prospects of the design and engineering school of Russia.

mixelflick wrote:However, I think its much more likely that they'll keep building SU-30SM's and SU-35's in dribs and drabs.


You are right again - su-30 and 35 will continue to be purchased. Moreover, the su-30 is waiting for another modernization in the coming years.

mixelflick wrote:They best hope one of those isn't lost to an F-22 or 35 (or God forbid an F-15 or 16), because then their export potential will be where the Mig-29's is today - in the toilet. Fine aircraft, but keeps getting reduced to hair, teeth, spare parts and eyeballs whenever encountering American jets.


The export potential of the su-35 has not yet been exhausted. Su-30 after modernization for some time to be successful.
But Su-57 will never be as common as Flanker, and even in the Russian leadership there is no confidence that the MiG will be able to create a light 5gen fighter in a reasonable time.
According to this, the main resources are aimed at UAVs and 6gen fighter.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 19:56
by mixelflick
Just imagine if instead of building thousands of F-35's. the US built.... 12. Furthermore, imagine if instead of those thousands of F-35's, the US built 200-300 upgraded F-15's and 16's. And instead of firm orders for more F-35's, we just gave out an IOU of 96 (maybe). "We'll build more when they're ready...".

The US military would be at an extreme disadvantage given...

1.) Air superiority hung by a precarious thread of 187 Raptors
2.) Every "new" F-15 and 16 we built was at risk of being blown out of the sky by the S-300/400/500
3.) We'd be outnumbered and stretched so thin the Chinese could island hop all the way to Hawaii

This wouldn't be made all better by proclaiming we're working on 6th gen UAV's. If I were Russia, I'd be looking for the head of whoever got them in this mess. Not only will they have to contend with the F-35 (thousands of them), they'd have to contend with Chinese J-10's, J-11's, SU-35's, J-31's and J-20's. So on not one but two fronts, they could be fighting stealth aircraft with.... upgraded Flankers.

Someone in Russia really dropped the ball, but there's no going back now...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2018, 13:45
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:This information is not classified, but unfortunately I can not tell the name of the person from whom it was received(


If your information cannot be verified as coming from a credible source, then your information is worthless.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2018, 14:31
by mixelflick
Let's assume they build 96 SU-57's.

That would mean Russia's entire stealth fleet would consist of fewer than 100 aircraft. I suppose they could be used as a silver bullet force, but that's it. There will be no 1:1 replacement of Flankers that's for sure.

In a way I pity them. They have some very talented airframe engineers over there, let down by the fact their engines and avionics are always lagging. More importantly, an error in judgement (a big one) in developing PAK FA vs. a lighter, cheaper multi-role stealth bird really hurt them. Who was responsible? A better question may be, why the error in the first place?

IMO, they were too focused on beating the Raptor at its own game. It's the big Kahuna, the measuring stick by which all other combat aircraft (fighters anyway) are judged. In fact, I can distinctly recall quotes by Russian AF officials to the effect that it would be, "superior to the Raptor in every way". Now we're told SU-30SM's and SU-35's are "good enough" to win the day. It's hard to tell if they really believe that.

MIG had a golden chance to re-gain its former glory after the Mig-I.44 was cancelled. I'm not sure what design they put forth before the PAK FA contract was handed to Sukhoi, but I'd love to know. It was at that juncture an error in judgement was made IMO, and it's going to hurt them for decades to come. The Flanker was the final design that was a huge domestic/export success, but it's getting long in the tooth.

They may well see it flying for another 30-50 years, given what's (not) in the pipeline to replace it..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 09:47
by element1loop
mixelflick wrote:" ... More importantly, an error in judgement (a big one) in developing PAK FA vs. a lighter, cheaper multi-role stealth bird really hurt them. ..."


Good points. But I suspect they'd have had similar propulsion problems with an F-35-ski or MiG29 sized aircraft, namely they can't do a credible single-engine design without a reliable high powered fuel-efficient competitive single. So their design will again become marginal in performance due to the need the use two smaller, thirstier and less reliable engines, with higher production plus ownership life-cycle cost, with less capability delivered. But they may have had a chance of making that actually work, rather than stall and dissipate, and also of exporting them like hot cakes, with 400 to 450 nm range. At least then they'd have had the basis to build something with more poke.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 12:12
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:Just imagine if instead of building thousands of F-35's. the US built.... 12. Furthermore, imagine if instead of those thousands of F-35's, the US built 200-300 upgraded F-15's and 16's. And instead of firm orders for more F-35's, we just gave out an IOU of 96 (maybe). "We'll build more when they're ready...".


Dear mixelflick, I will try to explain.
You oppose the future Russian 96 5gen and 300+ 4+ gen, against the future 2000+ 5gen and several thousand 4+ gen NATO fighters. But Russia has neither the budget nor the capacity to wage a convection war against the USA or NATO.
Russia has a special so-called hybrid defense strategy: Global strategic weapons to prevent the United States from conducting a direct military confrontation (not only promising nuclear means of attack, but also means of overcoming missile defense, disabling missile attack warning systems, etc.), and tactical non-convection systems to ensure non-interference of large armed forces of the NATO bloc of European countries.
To counter the rest probable enemy, 4+ gen fighters, and convection, land, sea and air-based missile systems really should be enough. To reduce air defense losses in the first hours (or days) of the war, a few dozen 5gen with anti-radar missiles in the bays will indeed be useful, however, 4+ gen fighters will really be enough for the main job in the foreseeable future.

mixelflick wrote:This wouldn't be made all better by proclaiming we're working on 6th gen UAV's. If I were Russia, I'd be looking for the head of whoever got them in this mess. Not only will they have to contend with the F-35 (thousands of them), they'd have to contend with Chinese J-10's, J-11's, SU-35's, J-31's and J-20's. So on not one but two fronts, they could be fighting stealth aircraft with.... upgraded Flankers.


Unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, Russia will be integrated into the economic space of the PRC, after which, its armed forces will also be more or less integrated with the Chinese. I really do not understand how the US made such a terrible historical mistake, giving Russia to China. If a radical change of policy towards Russia is not carried out right now, NATO will receive a front line with China stretching tens of thousands of kilometers.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 13:01
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:" ... More importantly, an error in judgement (a big one) in developing PAK FA vs. a lighter, cheaper multi-role stealth bird really hurt them. ..."


Good points. But I suspect they'd have had similar propulsion problems with an F-35-ski or MiG29 sized aircraft, namely they can't do a credible single-engine design without a reliable high powered fuel-efficient competitive single.


They were going to build a stealthy Yak-43 built around the NK-321 (55,000lbs thrust) but it didn't get beyond paper. (The engine is huge by the way so I don't know how successful it would have been.)

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 14:44
by mixelflick
I can understand those points about Russia. It's clear they don't have the $ to match the US/NATO plane for plane, system for system. Can't say as I'd be doing it any other way if I was them.

However, this point about missing the boat with a smaller, lighter semi-stealth aircraft is a big one. As pointed out earlier, it would have made a lot more sense (both domestically and export orders IMO). They could have for example not dictated super-cruise as a design point (as in the F-35). That would have taken a lot of pressure off the engine people, although finding a suitable (single) engine would have still been a challenge.

Russia has been building so many big, twin engine, long range fighters for so long (Flankers of all sorts, plus PAK FA) it makes you wonder if they're still capable of stamping out something smaller, lighter and less expensive. The epitome of this in years past would have been the Mig-21. So imagine a present day Mig-21 with as much stealth/SA as they could build into it. I'm betting it would have been a hit with former Mig-29 operators and give any Flanker fits. Single engine with thrust vectoring to preserve the super-maneuverability they hold so dear.

The ideal would be to offer something with maybe 75% of the capability of the F-35 at half the price. India, the UAE, Egypt and Iran come to mind as countries that might bite on something like that..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 14:48
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:Dear mixelflick, I will try to explain.
You oppose the future Russian 96 5gen and 300+ 4+ gen, against the future 2000+ 5gen and several thousand 4+ gen NATO fighters. But Russia has neither the budget nor the capacity to wage a convection war against the USA or NATO.
Russia has a special so-called hybrid defense strategy: Global strategic weapons to prevent the United States from conducting a direct military confrontation (not only promising nuclear means of attack, but also means of overcoming missile defense, disabling missile attack warning systems, etc.), and tactical non-convection systems to ensure non-interference of large armed forces of the NATO bloc of European countries.
To counter the rest probable enemy, 4+ gen fighters, and convection, land, sea and air-based missile systems really should be enough. To reduce air defense losses in the first hours (or days) of the war, a few dozen 5gen with anti-radar missiles in the bays will indeed be useful, however, 4+ gen fighters will really be enough for the main job in the foreseeable future.


tl:dr Russia's conventional military only exists to bully smaller countries like Georgia and Ukraine around.

Which is probably an important capability for tinpot dictators with delusions of grandeur like Putin.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 15:48
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:I can understand those points about Russia. It's clear they don't have the $ to match the US/NATO plane for plane, system for system. Can't say as I'd be doing it any other way if I was them.

However, this point about missing the boat with a smaller, lighter semi-stealth aircraft is a big one. As pointed out earlier, it would have made a lot more sense (both domestically and export orders IMO). They could have for example not dictated super-cruise as a design point (as in the F-35). That would have taken a lot of pressure off the engine people, although finding a suitable (single) engine would have still been a challenge.

Russia has been building so many big, twin engine, long range fighters for so long (Flankers of all sorts, plus PAK FA) it makes you wonder if they're still capable of stamping out something smaller, lighter and less expensive. The epitome of this in years past would have been the Mig-21. So imagine a present day Mig-21 with as much stealth/SA as they could build into it. I'm betting it would have been a hit with former Mig-29 operators and give any Flanker fits. Single engine with thrust vectoring to preserve the super-maneuverability they hold so dear.

The ideal would be to offer something with maybe 75% of the capability of the F-35 at half the price. India, the UAE, Egypt and Iran come to mind as countries that might bite on something like that..


You are right, this is the dream of many in Russia. I remember one of our professors often saying, "MiG-21 is the best airplane! Not Su-27, not MiG-29". We were laughing in those days, and then I started to see what he meant.
But the Russian air force because of the specific geography, primarily required aircraft with a large combat radius. Launch in parallel two programs to create easy and heavy fighter pilot was impossible by finances. So won the concept of average fighter, larger than the MiG-29, but smaller than the su-27. Now the LFMS program may or may not be running (time was lost). There is no certainty that Mikoyan's design Bureau is able to implement the program in a reasonable time. Their priority program is a new interceptor, a replacement for the MiG-31, which will be decommissioned by 2030.

The only one "but". If LFMS will appear, it will anyway be twin-engine like j-31.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 15:55
by babybat{}.net
knowan wrote:Russia's conventional military only exists to bully smaller countries


In the first place is the task of protecting the strategic nuclear potential from a preventive strike by convection weapons.

knowan wrote:like Georgia and Ukraine


...Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova, Balkan republics, possibly Belarus, possibly Turkey, Middle East Monarchies, Transcaucasus Countries...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 17:03
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:...Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova, Balkan republics, possibly Belarus, possibly Turkey, Middle East Monarchies, Transcaucasus Countries...


It's almost as if the expansion of NATO was justified.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 06:03
by element1loop
babybat{}.net wrote:The only one "but". If LFMS will appear, it will anyway be twin-engine like j-31.


These numbers are from specs, my calcs and some estimates (as noted):

J-31

Fuel Load ~12,000 lb (About all it could be given MTOW and implied empty weight plus claimed payload on Wiki page)
Empty Weight 37,363 lb (Obtained via claimed MTOW, minus the claimed available ‘payload’ of 17,637 lb. In 2015 Wiki claimed empty weight was 38,801 lb … so I’m being a bit generous)
Max Internal Weapons 4,409 lb (claimed 2,000 kg internal and 6,000 kg external)
TOW (with that configuration is) 53,772 lb
Remains under MTOW by 1,228 lb
MTOW is claimed as 55,000 lb

J-17 RD-93 (x2) engine thrust:
Dry Thrust lb=22,210
A/B Thrust lb=36,570

Resulting power to weight ratios with claimed full internal weapon payload used up:

Dry 100% fuel 0.41
AB 100% fuel 0.68

Dry 75% fuel 0.43
AB 75% fuel 0.72

Dry 50% fuel 0.47
AB 50% fuel 0.77

Dry 25% fuel 0.51
AB 25% fuel 0.83

Not good for a multirole fighter in the 2020s, but it's not unlike a fully-loaded Gripen E/F either. Wiki says this about J-31 payload:

“Payload
The J-31 can carry 8000 kg (17637 lb) of payload, with four munitions totaling 2000 kg (4409 lb) internally, and 6000 kg (13228 lb) carried on six external hardpoints; primary armaments include the PL-10 short-range missile and SD-10A medium-range air-to-air missile. It has a combat radius of 648 nmi (746 mi; 1,200 km) and a maximum take-off weight of 25,000 kg (55,000 lb).”

See the problem here?

Full-fuel of 12,000 lb plus the full-weapon payload gives a weight of 67,000 lb, or 12,000 lb over MTOW. In other words, you can have full-fuel, or you can have full-weapons--but you can not have both. So J-31, as it currently stands, would be unable to have full-fuel and to carry any external weapons, unless you first removed all of the internal weapons.

So external pylons on a J-31 will not be seeing a whole lot of action. :D

All of those computer pics of the J-31 flying about with a wide variety of nasty looking external stores … yeah ... dreaming.

In reality it would carry about the same internal weapon loads as an F-35B, and about 12,000 lb of fuel, into two fuel-inefficient engines, that will always have to be driven hard (even more fuel-guzzling) to produce acceptable cruise, or acceleration, or energy-recovery performance. So range would be less than half of that of an F-35, and performance and agility would be distinctly lacking after the first turn, and the practical weapons payload would be around one fifth that of an F-35A.

So basically you'd get something like a Gripen E/F in strike-range, and even worse than Grippen in deliverable weapon weights, but with added LO advantages (version 1.0). Which is useful but nothing like what the Chinese claim it as, nor clearly want it to be. So a Russian 5th-gen J-31ski is likely to run into similar limits, unless the engines are significantly better than RD-93s.

I suspect Russia could actually produce a better LO J-31ski over the next decade.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 09:13
by juretrn
I really do not understand how the US made such a terrible historical mistake, giving Russia to China

And that's the whole takeaway of Russia's current foreign policy toward the West at the moment, isn't it? "Give us these and these and these concessions or else!" Problem is, China is big and powerful enough to basically make a colony out of Russia, so I don't think Russia will pursue a closer relationship with China anytime soon.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 11:00
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:However, this point about missing the boat with a smaller, lighter semi-stealth aircraft is a big one. As pointed out earlier, it would have made a lot more sense (both domestically and export orders IMO). They could have for example not dictated super-cruise as a design point (as in the F-35). That would have taken a lot of pressure off the engine people, although finding a suitable (single) engine would have still been a challenge.


But you will not save a lot if you make one engined stealth. F-35 is much cheaper then F-22 only because of order. Imagine if USAF decided in past they need only ~200 F-35A what price of F-35A would be then?

So Russia wouldn't save a lot going one engined stealth. We can expect one engined PAK-FA could be ~2/3 price of two engined PAK-FA. Even if it is ~50% of PAK-FA they would buy 200 (now they are planing to have 100 two engined).

mixelflick wrote:So imagine a present day Mig-21 with as much stealth/SA as they could build into it. I'm betting it would have been a hit with former Mig-29 operators and give any Flanker fits. Single engine with thrust vectoring to preserve the super-maneuverability they hold so dear.


Stealth need size if you want range and weapon load. So if it is small you need to choice between range or weapons, in case of Russia range requirement is even more important, so you would stuck with some compact stealth which have comical weapon load (two R-77 for example).

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 14:31
by mixelflick
I understand...

It seems having the range necessary to defend the motherland dictates a large fuel load, and if it's a stealth bird it needs to be all internal. So you arrive at something like PAK FA. Even conventional designs like the Mig-31 carry enormous amounts of fuel.

OTOH, we have LFMI which (at least for export potential) needs to be on a smaller scale. It's a shame they can't do it with one engine, but it is what it is. That and the smaller airframe should have resulted in a cheaper aircraft, again being more attractive for export. But LFMI won't likely materialize due to funds being poured into the PAK FA and Mig-31 replacement. I rather doubt the export potential of both, and that's going to hurt as more and more nations sign up for the F-35 or J-31.

Tough place to be for Russia...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 15:58
by element1loop
They're about to get some economic sunshine as oil price is rising with approaching hard-core sanctions on Iran.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 17:01
by tphuang
babybat{}.net wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Everyone knows why they're buying the SU-35 - to copy its engine. It isn't because they're so enthralled with the Flanker airframe or its capabilities. If they were, why bother with the J-20 or J-31? They're clearly investing much more heavily in those, vs. buying more Flankers. They have what, 24 on order? Doubtful they'll invest much more, especially given the developmental costs of their 5th gen fighters.


Unfortunately, the 117S engine is not so good that it would be for the sake of a two-billion contract(
Of course, its researching will give some useful information, but this is not the only reason.
First of all, the su-35 is a well-balanced aviation complex for good price. He certainly will not be purchased by PRC in large quantities, but we can expect a contract for another 24 units.

Su-35 was purchased because it's better than J-11B. Very simple. PLAAF sees Su-35 as a capable interim solution from a familiar partner KNAAPO that was better than what SAC can build and also immediately available. It needed something that can replace retiring Su-27s. It also helps to have the latest version of an aircraft that everyone in the neighbourhood has so that it can train J-20 and J10B/C against them and know exactly how to take them down.

I don't see IAF needing to purchase Su-35 at anytime since they have been working with IAPO and would probably just seek to have certain technolgoies developed for Su-35/57 be applied on there.

mixelflick wrote:So they're building 96 SU-57? Where are you getting that #?, as the only firm orders we've seen are for... 12.


These 12 are not among them. Only the last 2 of them will have the appearance of the second stage. And it is after their tests the first contract will be signed. I don't think we should expect that before 2023.
This information is not classified, but unfortunately I can not tell the name of the person from whom it was received(

so far everything announced about this project has been delayed or reduced in scope. When do you think 96 su-57 will really come. By 2030?

mixelflick wrote:Even if they do build 96, they're going to be outrageously expensive - and Russia (like the US) will be tempted to ax it. That's if the 96 are real in the first place. For the sake of the people working on it, I actually hope you're right. It'll probably take export orders though to make this happen, and with such a small production run - they ain't going to be cheap.


You're right. This program is very expensive. And hopes that India will cover part of the development costs were not justified.
But, as I said earlier, it is necessary to preserve the competencies and prospects of the design and engineering school of Russia.

based on the progress of su-57, it looks like competencies have already been lost. And even if Su-57 does get into service in sufficient numbers, it's still debatable whether or not it can be considered a generational improvement over Su-35.

mixelflick wrote:They best hope one of those isn't lost to an F-22 or 35 (or God forbid an F-15 or 16), because then their export potential will be where the Mig-29's is today - in the toilet. Fine aircraft, but keeps getting reduced to hair, teeth, spare parts and eyeballs whenever encountering American jets.


The export potential of the su-35 has not yet been exhausted. Su-30 after modernization for some time to be successful.
But Su-57 will never be as common as Flanker, and even in the Russian leadership there is no confidence that the MiG will be able to create a light 5gen fighter in a reasonable time.
According to this, the main resources are aimed at UAVs and 6gen fighter.

Su-35 exports will be fine for the next 10 years. But what is Russia doing after that?

How can they build 6 gen fighter when they can't even build one that fits the 5th generation criteria? As for UAV, they are not only behind West and Israel on this, but also China. Where is their export market for UAV when China already has non-Western option countries cornered? And how does Russia develop new UAVs without export funding when it's already behind the curve?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 17:06
by tphuang
element1loop wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:The only one "but". If LFMS will appear, it will anyway be twin-engine like j-31.


These numbers are from specs, my calcs and some estimates (as noted):

J-31

Fuel Load ~12,000 lb (About all it could be given MTOW and implied empty weight plus claimed payload on Wiki page)
Empty Weight 37,363 lb (Obtained via claimed MTOW, minus the claimed available ‘payload’ of 17,637 lb. In 2015 Wiki claimed empty weight was 38,801 lb … so I’m being a bit generous)
Max Internal Weapons 4,409 lb (claimed 2,000 kg internal and 6,000 kg external)
TOW (with that configuration is) 53,772 lb
Remains under MTOW by 1,228 lb
MTOW is claimed as 55,000 lb

J-17 RD-93 (x2) engine thrust:
Dry Thrust lb=22,210
A/B Thrust lb=36,570

Resulting power to weight ratios with claimed full internal weapon payload used up:

Dry 100% fuel 0.41
AB 100% fuel 0.68

Dry 75% fuel 0.43
AB 75% fuel 0.72

Dry 50% fuel 0.47
AB 50% fuel 0.77

Dry 25% fuel 0.51
AB 25% fuel 0.83

Not good for a multirole fighter in the 2020s, but it's not unlike a fully-loaded Gripen E/F either. Wiki says this about J-31 payload:

“Payload
The J-31 can carry 8000 kg (17637 lb) of payload, with four munitions totaling 2000 kg (4409 lb) internally, and 6000 kg (13228 lb) carried on six external hardpoints; primary armaments include the PL-10 short-range missile and SD-10A medium-range air-to-air missile. It has a combat radius of 648 nmi (746 mi; 1,200 km) and a maximum take-off weight of 25,000 kg (55,000 lb).”

See the problem here?

Full-fuel of 12,000 lb plus the full-weapon payload gives a weight of 67,000 lb, or 12,000 lb over MTOW. In other words, you can have full-fuel, or you can have full-weapons--but you can not have both. So J-31, as it currently stands, would be unable to have full-fuel and to carry any external weapons, unless you first removed all of the internal weapons.

So external pylons on a J-31 will not be seeing a whole lot of action. :D

All of those computer pics of the J-31 flying about with a wide variety of nasty looking external stores … yeah ... dreaming.

In reality it would carry about the same internal weapon loads as an F-35B, and about 12,000 lb of fuel, into two fuel-inefficient engines, that will always have to be driven hard (even more fuel-guzzling) to produce acceptable cruise, or acceleration, or energy-recovery performance. So range would be less than half of that of an F-35, and performance and agility would be distinctly lacking after the first turn, and the practical weapons payload would be around one fifth that of an F-35A.

So basically you'd get something like a Gripen E/F in strike-range, and even worse than Grippen in deliverable weapon weights, but with added LO advantages (version 1.0). Which is useful but nothing like what the Chinese claim it as, nor clearly want it to be. So a Russian 5th-gen J-31ski is likely to run into similar limits, unless the engines are significantly better than RD-93s.

I suspect Russia could actually produce a better LO J-31ski over the next decade.


J-31 won't become an official program until China has a better idea of when WS-19 (think of it as Chinese equivalent to F414) will go into production. Does Russia have a replacement program for RD-33 with proper funding?

twin-engined fighter jet using RD-33 is quite underpowered. I would think it's a no-go.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 20:17
by mixelflick
SU-35 exports OK for the next 10 years? You sure about that??

It's a good fighter, sure. But in this day and age where modern fighters have AESA radars, much more capable BVR air to air weapons and more and more, stealth technology - where's the value? If I'm a middle eastern country flush with money, why not spring for the F-35, Rafale or Typhoon instead?

All three hold significant advantages over the Flanker in key areas..

1.) AESA/advanced radars - much moreso than the Flankers PESA
2.) Much lower radar signature
3.) Meteor
4.) AIM-120D
5.) AIM-9x block II/III

I dunno man, I just don't see SU-35's proliferating like the other Flanker variants. At least in a 5th generation world, where the SU-35 will continue to fall further and further behind..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 01:43
by element1loop
tphuang wrote:Does Russia have a replacement program for RD-33 with proper funding?


If they neglected to move forwards from RD-33 they have no path to building a 5th-gen airforce.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 02:06
by element1loop
mixelflick wrote:If I'm a middle eastern country flush with money, why not spring for the F-35.


They won't get FMS approval. They'll stay 4th-gen-centric for a couple of decades as they try to 'collaborate' to develop their own engines, sensors and a 5th-gen airframe.

Until there's a genuine competitor to F-35 on the market, or LM has no more customers for the F-35 (as if!), then there's no incentive to sell into the ME, to what are actually non-aligned countries.

btw, this thread's strayed from topic ...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 08:22
by gideonic
In the Russian troll-factory land of "all according to plan" and "surpassing the West since 1917"™ ...

Russia just cancelled the Altair UAV, which had been developed since 2011, cost 3 Billion RUB (which is pennies though) and was supposed to be in serial production by 2020.

link (google translate): https://translate.google.com/translate? ... rda-rubley
The Defense Ministry has closed the development of the largest Russian UAV. For seven years, she spent three billion rubles
00:25, October 9, 2018

The Russian Defense Ministry has decided to stop developing the Altair drone, the largest UAV in Russia. She was engaged in Kazan MPB named after MP. Simonov.

As explained to Vedomosti, a source close to the Ministry of Defense, the created developments can be transferred to the Ural Civil Aviation Plant: it is possible that they will be used in similar projects.

UAV "Altair" was developed since 2011. In total, three billion rubles were spent on its development.
The first experimental flight "Altair" made in 2016. It was assumed that the serial production of the UAV will begin in 2020.


EDIT:
We of course don't have the public reason for the cancellation, so here is the shocker (cue drumroll) ....

The head of the company was arrested in April, for embezzling at least 900m rubles out of the project :roll:

Link: (google translate) https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 14:38
by mixelflick
Seems like a lot of Russian initiatives have been cancelled recently. It makes you wonder why the SU-57 program is still alive. Personally, I think this is a vanity project for Putin. If they don't at least have it in the works, it tells the world Russian technology/expertise isn't capable of fielding 5th gen aircraft. When your arms exports are such a big part of your economy, that's just not good business.

Since it's going to have an astronomical price tag (due to low production run), the export potential of the aircraft will be limited. India withdrew its funds/interest and now we're told they'll be pitched on the 2nd iteration of the aircraft. That may be, but now add even more cost to customize it for Indian service. The UAE? Maybe. But outside of those two I don't see any other buyers. Besides, the F-35 will be flooding the market and by that time its likely the J-31 will sell to any nation that doesn't qualify for it. Selling Flankers at that point ain't going to be easy.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 17:37
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:Seems like a lot of Russian initiatives have been cancelled recently. It makes you wonder why the SU-57 program is still alive. Personally, I think this is a vanity project for Putin. If they don't at least have it in the works, it tells the world Russian technology/expertise isn't capable of fielding 5th gen aircraft. When your arms exports are such a big part of your economy, that's just not good business.

Since it's going to have an astronomical price tag (due to low production run), the export potential of the aircraft will be limited. India withdrew its funds/interest and now we're told they'll be pitched on the 2nd iteration of the aircraft. That may be, but now add even more cost to customize it for Indian service. The UAE? Maybe. But outside of those two I don't see any other buyers. Besides, the F-35 will be flooding the market and by that time its likely the J-31 will sell to any nation that doesn't qualify for it. Selling Flankers at that point ain't going to be easy.


They can't cancel Su-57 not because it is vanity project but because things which are important are developing trough that project.

For expample Su-57 engine can be fitted in any Flanker. So if they invest in new engine for Su-57 they invest in engine for Su-30/34/35 even Su-27 if they want (engine is cheaper then 117S).

India for example is waiting Su-57 tech for Super 30 (Su-30MKI big upgrade).

We can talk about J-31 when it get decent engines (at least similar to F414). With 1980s RD-33 it is brick, smoking brick to be precise:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6cw3PWrDeIY/ ... 0/BEST.jpg

How need radar just search for smoke trails :D

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 00:06
by marsavian
It makes you wonder why the SU-57 program is still alive.


Supercruising (eventually) semi-stealthy super-maneuverable Flanker with AESA. Hey if there was no F-22/F-35 it would be leading edge so this stuff is all relative. Turkey also needs something to buy to go along with its S-400 and Iran will buy some too along with other friends.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 02:06
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:
It makes you wonder why the SU-57 program is still alive.


Supercruising (eventually) semi-stealthy super-maneuverable Flanker with AESA. Hey if there was no F-22/F-35 it would be leading edge so this stuff is all relative. Turkey also needs something to buy to go along with its S-400 and Iran will buy some too along with other friends.


Iran still flies Tomcats instead of buying Flankers.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 08:45
by marsavian
They were blocked by sanctions when they wanted to buy Su-35 plus even now the Tomcat/Phoenix platform is still capable against non-stealth opposition, that's how far ahead of its time it was.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 14:39
by mixelflick
marsavian wrote:They were blocked by sanctions when they wanted to buy Su-35 plus even now the Tomcat/Phoenix platform is still capable against non-stealth opposition, that's how far ahead of its time it was.


The former may be true, but I'd question the latter. The AWG-9/Phoenix was an incredible combination for its day, the operative words there being "was" and "for its day". Its range is now matched by the AIM-120D, as is its multiple/ripple launch profile. And Super Hornets and Eagles can carry quite a few more than the 1-2 I've seen Iranian Tomcats flying with. Never have I seen them with 4, and I can only imagine how sluggish it'll be carrying 6. This assumes they actually have a functioning Phoenix derivative, which IMO is questionable.

Also, just imagine how fast the US/US Navy went to work countering that technology after the revolution. You have to believe they have lots of different ways to jam it. Then there is the maneuverability question: Does just fine hitting Mig-25's, bombers and aircraft without a RWR flying in a straight line. Perhaps not so well against a fighter sized target pulling many G's.

Don't get me wrong: I love the F-14 and those big Phoenix missiles. But at around a million a shot and with 1970's tech, it's not going to be the most difficult weapon on the battlefield to defeat...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2019, 20:51
by milosh
We have first official photo of UCAV, if wheels are from Flanker family then UCAV is huge, paralay's analyse:
http://uploads.ru/0KZtr.jpg

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 07:34
by fidgetspinner
Does anyone have a good size estimation as to what the size of the internal weapons bay would be for their drone?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 14:56
by knowan
milosh wrote:We have first official photo of UCAV, if wheels are from Flanker family then UCAV is huge, paralay's analyse:
http://uploads.ru/0KZtr.jpg


Huge means expensive, so odds of it entering service are fairly low.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 18:26
by milosh
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:We have first official photo of UCAV, if wheels are from Flanker family then UCAV is huge, paralay's analyse:
http://uploads.ru/0KZtr.jpg


Huge means expensive, so odds of it entering service are fairly low.


Airframe is surely more expensive then smaller airframe but it can carry more fuel and weapons which compensate price difference especially in Russia which is huge so if you go with smaller aircraft you need lot more airfields.

Big engine is cheaper then medium engine (RD-33MK) because RD-33MK is old design push to limits which is in fact more expensive then new AL-31 variants, and lot more expensive then next gen engine.

Btw it isn't really finished:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f10/19/89/13/22/2-42-110.jpg

Surely it will not use engine with AB and it will have sting tail, as we saw on tunnel model and on T-50 (testbed for swarm command aircraft) which have UCAV siluette on belly:
https://russianplanes.net/images/to245000/244251.jpg

fidgetspinner wrote:Does anyone have a good size estimation as to what the size of the internal weapons bay would be for their drone?


5-6 m meter long missiles. I doubt anything longer could fit, so Brahmos-M (5meter) or shortest Kalibr if it is little over 6 meters.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2019, 20:17
by knowan
milosh wrote:Airframe is surely more expensive then smaller airframe but it can carry more fuel and weapons which compensate price difference especially in Russia which is huge so if you go with smaller aircraft you need lot more airfields.

Big engine is cheaper then medium engine (RD-33MK) because RD-33MK is old design push to limits which is in fact more expensive then new AL-31 variants, and lot more expensive then next gen engine.

Btw it isn't really finished:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f10/19/89/13/22/2-42-110.jpg

Surely it will not use engine with AB and it will have sting tail, as we saw on tunnel model and on T-50 (testbed for swarm command aircraft) which have UCAV siluette on belly:
https://russianplanes.net/images/to245000/244251.jpg


Yeah, this is obviously an early prototype, nowhere near a finished aircraft.

My gut judgement is it is too ambitious for Russia. They haven't had a stealth airframe in service before, manned or unmanned, nor a flying wing.
It would have made more sense for them to start with a smaller conventional airframe recon drone with stealth features instead a full sized bird with all those problematic features at the same time.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 18:04
by mixelflick
I concur...

They're getting way ahead of themselves. I mean, think about it. They won't have a fully functioning 5th gen until 2025 at the earliest. Now they're rolling out 6th gen birds? I'm not saying it's impossible, but they're going to be spending mucho rubles on both. If anything, it'll delay the SU-57 even further. They'll struggle to afford that alone, nevermind this "Hunter" contraption.

We're not aware of any comparable American airframes, at least that are flying. But Combat AIrcraft did a cover story almost a year ago on American black programs describing entire families of flying wing/ISR type aircraft. I'd imagine after ISR, air to ground/strike missions would be worked up next. And then finally, the technology for an air to air machine.

It's a tall order all around, but we are well on our way. How long has the RQ-170 been flying?? And now the rumored RQ-180?? I have to believe we have the ISR thing down with these drones, and quite likely the strike mission as well. Whatever work they've done on air to air drones I have to believe will be rolled into PCA.

This looks like an attempt to do something, just for the sake of doing something. And by making these pictures visible for the world to see, I bet that's exactly what's going on. Vlad loves showing off his super-weapons, whether he actually has them or not (as the case may be)...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2019, 21:10
by knowan
Looks like the RQ-180 has been flying since 2014-2015.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2019, 00:42
by element1loop
mixelflick wrote:Now they're rolling out 6th gen birds? ... This looks like an attempt to do something, just for the sake of doing something.


I see nothing '6th-gen' there just another drone copying existing Western prototype/demonstrator limited-strike ISR drones. Are those also '6th-gens'? Russia would probably find it easier to get tactical targeting ISR with an unmanned VLO aircraft in Eastern Europe than to design and build a VLO manned strikefighter with such a capability. They already have 4th-gen aircraft to fire long-range ALCMs but will need current VLO enabled ISR targeting for when the satellites are kaput (see AEGIS Ashore).

So the Russians are apparently now fully accepting that VLO actually still works, despite their mighty 'anti-stealth' sensor array, else, why would they bother making this? (And China builds carriers when US also has anti-ship ballistic missile options, as China pursues 'informationization' and reliance on satellite data distribution, when USA and Allies now have copious ASAT weapons on hand.)

See Iranian knock-off of RQ-170 for outcomes.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2019, 06:29
by fidgetspinner
knowan wrote:Looks like the RQ-180 has been flying since 2014-2015.


errr 1 slight issue. When I brought this up at a 4chan /k/ board saying it was similiar to the predator drone everyone laughed at me saying the RQ-180 was only for recon. Is that correct?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2019, 10:33
by knowan
fidgetspinner wrote:
knowan wrote:Looks like the RQ-180 has been flying since 2014-2015.


errr 1 slight issue. When I brought this up at a 4chan /k/ board saying it was similiar to the predator drone everyone laughed at me saying the RQ-180 was only for recon. Is that correct?


There is very little publicly available information on the RQ-180; even the information on its size and what it looks like aren't confirmed, so it is impossible to rule out a strike capability.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 20:43
by milosh
First flight:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 14:28
by vilters
Stealth is still not in their dictionary. Look at that engine begging to be shot at.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 14:39
by mixelflick
You know, Russian approach to aircraft design isn't much different than AGILE/SCRUM methodology (used in software design).

AGILE is their overall developmental methodology, giving focus the the strategic vision of the project (think SU-27, meant to eclipse the F-15). SCRUM is the tactical implementation of AGILE's vision, focusing on incremental improvements delivered in a very regular fashion. They (arguably) got to their goal, but it stands in stark contrast to most Western approaches to designing and fielding new aircraft. The F-35 being the exeption.

When I read about this AGILE/SCRUM dynamic, a quote from someone in the USAF about the F-35 struck me. Paraphrasing, "Who wins the next war will depend on who can get the best software into the field the fastest". Or something to that effect..

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2019, 18:00
by milosh
vilters wrote:Stealth is still not in their dictionary. Look at that engine begging to be shot at.


Because it is flying with 117 engine, type-30 engine is shorter and have stealthy nozzle:
Image

Also Saturn official mentioned they are working on flat nozzle for Type-30 but not for Su-57. Maybe for this UCAV?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2019, 22:50
by falcon.16
milosh wrote:
vilters wrote:Stealth is still not in their dictionary. Look at that engine begging to be shot at.


Because it is flying with 117 engine, type-30 engine is shorter and have stealthy nozzle:
Image

Also Saturn official mentioned they are working on flat nozzle for Type-30 but not for Su-57. Maybe for this UCAV?



Really, you can not fix the problem of the engine with the new iz-30, it seems shorter becasue perspective, but really if it is shorter, only will be few centimeters. It will have a massive thermal signature and a massive Radar signature. This engine needs to stay totally hide inside airframe similar than western UCAVs.

With flat nozzle they can fix some of this problems, but we will see. They tell many things and after is forgotten.

And do not forget it seems do not have S-duct.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2019, 14:46
by milosh
@falcon.16

IMO, on final variant only stealthy nozzle would be exposed.

Type-30 is definitely shorter then 117 (more then few cm), type-30 doesn't have two segment nozzle as 117 or Al-31 have, and it have two HP stages less then 117.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 15:03
by fidgetspinner
su-70 airshow mock up photos with size comparisons.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 14:47
by southerncross
Su-57 and Okhotnik flying together. No proof of any concrete capability, but it looks great :D


Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 15:35
by mixelflick
Interesting...

Being as big as it is though (drone), isn't it going to be - expensive? And this would be on top of the SU-57's cost (not buying the bargain basement figure's they're throwing out, unless it lost a hell of a lot of capability). The whole thing makes you wonder..

1.) If the SU-57 is so good, why the need for the Hunter?
2.) If the SU-57 is so cheap, why not just buy more vs. go to the expense of developing a complex drone?

I have a feeling the Russians know the SU-57 isn't stealthy enough, and Hunter is there for insurance. I may be wrong, but if its such a great concept - why has the US not invested in companion drones for the F-22 and F-35?

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 17:40
by element1loop
I see a prototype drone and a prototype Su57 flying in formation with it, not the other way around. No 'mazing 'capability' of any sort is implied.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 18:14
by southerncross
mixelflick wrote:Being as big as it is though (drone), isn't it going to be - expensive?

I read some estimations of it going to be roughly as expensive as the Su-34, but there was no real reasoning behind.
One engine vs. two, small(ish) radar, no life support equipment for the pilot / cockpit / HMI, simple structure without supersonic flight requirements, defensive suite / redundancy and survivability measures can be lowered... there are some savings there to compensate for higher technology, VLO, avionics, ISR equipment etc. On the long term, when such technologies mature a bit, it could be IMHO cheaper and more simple to produce than an equivalent manned strike plane.
And this would be on top of the SU-57's cost (not buying the bargain basement figure's they're throwing out, unless it lost a hell of a lot of capability). The whole thing makes you wonder..

You have official domestic prices for Su-30/35 that are also a bargain compared to equivalent Western ones.
1.) If the SU-57 is so good, why the need for the Hunter?

Russia sees no real possibility to operate safely inside an advanced IADS on the long run and no need to expose manned platforms to that risk, that would be the short answer.

An UCAV as the Okhotnik has the following advantages IMHO:
- Obvious smaller sensitivity to attrition, since no pilot is being lost, and therefore possibility to increase operational effectiveness by using higher risk approaches.
- Much improved persistence and range (Putin is supposed to have said 6,000 km range to Erdogan while they were discussing at MAKS2019, obviously no proof available)
- Derived from above, subsonic / low maneuverability design and therefore use of flying-wing layout with top intake for best broad-band VLO performance.
2.) If the SU-57 is so cheap, why not just buy more vs. go to the expense of developing a complex drone?

Because the drone will be more effective for the strike role in non-permissive scenarios, see above. The Su-57 is a high-end supersonic fighter manned only by the elite of Russian pilots, it would not be smart to sacrifice them attempting unreasonably high risk missions.
I have a feeling the Russians know the SU-57 isn't stealthy enough, and Hunter is there for insurance.

Okhotnik is not for insurance but as an organic part of the VKS in the strike and intelligence roles.
I may be wrong, but if its such a great concept - why has the US not invested in companion drones for the F-22 and F-35?

US is IMHO not pursuing a very different path. The CSBA analysis I posted re. USN and some others about AF all point out to UCAVs and stand-off weapons as workable ways to deal with high-end IADS or pointing out the need to catch up with the development of the AD.
Loyal wingman is being actively developed and the US military has already done this job Russians are only doing now some time ago.

EDIT:
Janes claims there was indeed some kind of teaming between both planes during the test flight:
https://www.janes.com/article/91563/rus ... 57-fighter

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 20:20
by southerncross
Confirmation about some operational data of the Okhotnik:
The forum "MAX-2019" the President of Russia Vladimir Putin told his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the characteristics of the latest drone. This footage was shown in the program "Moscow. The Kremlin. Putin" on - "Russia-1" (VGTRK).
"Combat load is 6 tons. Radiozametnost - even less than the su-57", - said Putin.
He noted that the range of "Hunter" is about 6 thousand kilometers and a flight altitude of 18 km.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?r ... 50&lang=RU

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 02:13
by awsome
[/quote]

EDIT:
We of course don't have the public reason for the cancellation, so here is the shocker (cue drumroll) ....

The head of the company was arrested in April, for embezzling at least 900m rubles out of the project :roll:

Link: (google translate) https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=[/quote]



Not to worry... Joe Biden will have the prosecutor fired.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 02:23
by awsome
knowan wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:...Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova, Balkan republics, possibly Belarus, possibly Turkey, Middle East Monarchies, Transcaucasus Countries...


It's almost as if the expansion of NATO was justified.



Nobody has ever been able to explain why Russia would ever invade those extremely poor countries. NATO may be interested in propping them up to exploit their proximity to Russia's borders but there is a good reason Russia let them go in the first place...

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 02:31
by element1loop
southerncross wrote:I read some estimations of it going to be roughly as expensive as the Su-34, but there was no real reasoning behind. One engine vs. two, small(ish) radar, no life support equipment for the pilot / cockpit / HMI, simple structure without supersonic flight requirements, defensive suite / redundancy and survivability measures can be lowered... there are some savings there to compensate for higher technology, VLO, avionics, ISR equipment etc. On the long term, when such technologies mature a bit, it could be IMHO cheaper and more simple to produce than an equivalent manned strike plane.


It's capability cost not aircraft cost which matters to affordability. Maintenance and operations cost of a global satellite constellation and its down-links, and defending all that, is an intrinsic element in generating and maintaining a credible high-end UCAS capability.

southerncross wrote:EDIT: Janes claims there was indeed some kind of teaming between both planes during the test flight: https://www.janes.com/article/91563/rus ... 57-fighter


JANES: "... As noted by the MoD, the Okhotnik UAV served as a ‘sensor-amplifier’ for the Su-57, flying out ahead of the manned aircraft and using its onboard sensors to feed information back to the pilot. ..."

:doh:
You've got to be kidding? A datalinked drone provides near real-time sensor data to another platform? I'd be seriously shocked if it didn't (and asking what's wrong with it?). An MQ-1 Predator with a rotax-engine was doing that 25 years ago.

When I think of 'teaming' with a strikefighter, as a tactical capability, providing fused data to a pilot isn't it. Even long-range rocket artillery or a drone could deliver a battery-operated passive ground sensor to provide forward area data. A loitering missile with ESM and a two-way datalink can relay what's in front of you.

But if it can't fight tactically, as well as a human does, that's not even as good as having a disposable datalinked MALD which can find the enema, get into position on it then kamikaze a canopy or hot-section as the opening act of an ambush, after you've already been flanked by a wide open formation of 4 x F-35A.

"Ramming speed!" :devil:

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 10:39
by southerncross
element1loop wrote: :doh:
You've got to be kidding? A datalinked drone provides near real-time sensor data to another platform? I'd be seriously shocked if it didn't (and asking what's wrong with it?). An MQ-1 Predator with a rotax-engine was doing that 25 years ago.

When I think of 'teaming' with a strikefighter, as a tactical capability, providing fused data to a pilot isn't it. Even long-range rocket artillery or a drone could deliver a battery-operated passive ground sensor to provide forward area data. A loitering missile with ESM and a two-way datalink can relay what's in front of you.

We just don't know what level of information processing they are using as of now, the first flight of this thing was on August 3rd. But given Su-57 is said to have an AI "artificial pilot" that assesses the tactical situation as a whole and guides the human onboard, I would not dismiss the possibility that a corresponding AI on Okhotnik will be sharing info with it. They have said there is a plan to continuously expand the capabilities of the Su-57 - Okhotnik teaming, as anyone could predict BTW and in the same line US and everyone out there is working, so that the pilot of the plane will be the man in the loop overseeing the mission as a whole and the UCAV(s) being able to implement complex tasks pretty much autonomously. The article you posted on the PCA thread just explains it.

This is what the MoD is quoted saying:
"During the flight, had worked out the interaction between the UAV "Hunter" and leader of the su-57 on the expansion radar field of the fighter and target designation for the application of aircraft weapons, long-range without entering su-57 in the conditional area of counteraction of air defense", - stated in the defense Ministry.
The defense Ministry said that it was the first joint flight of "Hunter" and su-57 as part of testing the new drone, it lasted 30 minutes.
According to the Agency, "Hunter" "flew in the automatic mode in full configuration with access to the zone duty".

This, as opposed to the Okhotnik flying controlled from the ground station and a Su-57 flying in formation with it just for the sake of shooting a cool video, but without any data sharing or system integration effort. We just don't know at what level the data sharing between both AC works, so any assumption on that being crude or not is a personal opinion.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 14:23
by element1loop
southerncross wrote: ... so any assumption on that being crude or not is a personal opinion.


Wrong, those are prototypes, they are not even production aircraft, let alone operational aircraft, and at least one of them is new to flying and very crude. I likewise don't believe in magic unicorns.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 17:54
by southerncross
element1loop wrote:Wrong, those are prototypes, they are not even production aircraft, let alone operational aircraft, and at least one of them is new to flying and very crude. I likewise don't believe in magic unicorns.

Wrong, you cannot know what kind of system integration and data fusion they have implemented to this date, and therefore you are simply speculating and apparently hoping they are nowhere close to what you think is actually useful, when the rational approach would be to be cautious. Fact is the systems and algorithms needed for such functions don't even need the platforms to be tested. An beyond HIL benches, T50-3 has been flying for some time now with the avionics intended for Okhtonik. We just don't know, regardless of you pretending otherwise.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 21:18
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:I may be wrong, but if its such a great concept - why has the US not invested in companion drones for the F-22 and F-35?


Okhotnik isn't just buddy drone for Su-57 it can be used in that role but from what officials said is strike role. They are planing to have air force units armed with Okhotnik only.

And US did have similar project (I don't mean buddy drone) it was UCAS. If you look never built X-47B dimensions they are very similar to Okhotnik, Okhotnik have better range because no need to carrier operation which add extra weight.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2019, 03:33
by element1loop
southerncross wrote:
element1loop wrote:Wrong, those are prototypes, they are not even production aircraft, let alone operational aircraft, and at least one of them is new to flying and very crude. I likewise don't believe in magic unicorns.

Wrong, you cannot know what kind of system integration and data fusion they have implemented to this date, and therefore you are simply speculating and apparently hoping they are nowhere close to what you think is actually useful, when the rational approach would be to be cautious. Fact is the systems and algorithms needed for such functions don't even need the platforms to be tested. An beyond HIL benches, T50-3 has been flying for some time now with the avionics intended for Okhtonik. We just don't know, regardless of you pretending otherwise.


But you seem to think you know enough to sprout such BS? We've all seen way too many Russian propaganda claims that turned out to false and baseless to award an once of credence to such hopey pet-claims. Unreserved scepticism is fully warranted especially with absurd crap like this in the mix:

"... In the documents, the drone is characterised as a "sixth-generation unmanned aerial vehicle". ... " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_S-70_Okhotnik


Really? And where are the other five generations? Stuff like that immediate gives the game away for what it is. It goes on thus ...

"... In November 2018, the drone performed first series of taxiing, speeding and stopping tests in fully autonomous mode at a runway of the NAPO plant. During the runs, it has reached a maximum speed of 200 km/h. ... "


So it's just learning to operate and is now undergoing its earliest flight-tests but you actually expect us to believe it's a mission-systems capable aircraft? ...... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :roll:

On 24 January 2019, first flyable prototype of the drone was seen towed at the NAPO plant.[13] According to Russian officials, the Su-57 is being used as a flying laboratory for the testing of the Okhotnik's avionics systems.


i.e. the Su57 software is not as developed as you merely claimed, it's at an initial experimentation level, if it exists at all on the jet. It smells and looks like raw propaganda sewage at this point. Maybe they should just deploy it to Syrious to lend it some battle-'cred'! lol

Okhotnik is in the teething developmental stage, at best.

" ... On 3 August 2019, Okhotnik performed its maiden flight. ... "


The first flight was 7 weeks ago. Claims of advanced capabilities beyond that reality are odious cringe-worthy garbage.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2019, 11:35
by southerncross
@element1loop
The only thing I have said is that we don't know what level of data fusion and tactical integration are being used, I have not claimed any advanced operational capability at all, so don't put words in my mouth. And OBVIOUSLY this is only the beginning of the experimentation with UCAV-fighter integration, many years are still needed to develop, test and fine tune all necessary elements to make them operationally effective.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2019, 16:51
by vladimir
Russian UCAV Okhotnik-b is getting new, flat & stealthy engine exhaust nozzle. So it seems that the current engine is just a temporary solution. :wink:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-460500/

MAKS: Sukhoi shows intent to add stealthy exhaust on S-70 UAV

Sukhoi displayed a sub-scale model of its S-70 Okhotnik “Hunter” unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with a flattened exhaust outlet at the MAKS international air show on 27 August.

The nozzle, which conforms to the flying wing’s shape, shows that the Russian military aircraft manufacturer intends to make its UAV stealthier than the initial prototype that it began flying on 7 August. That aircraft’s engine exhaust tip was exposed, a design which could raise the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) and infrared signature.
However, the aircraft model looks similar to Western flying wing UAVs such as the Dassault Neuron, BAE Systems Taranis and Northrop Grumman X-47B. The flying wing shape should give it less radar cross section.

Image
Image

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 12:16
by falcon.16
vladimir wrote:Russian UCAV Okhotnik-b is getting new, flat & stealthy engine exhaust nozzle. So it seems that the current engine is just a temporary solution. :wink:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-460500/

MAKS: Sukhoi shows intent to add stealthy exhaust on S-70 UAV

Sukhoi displayed a sub-scale model of its S-70 Okhotnik “Hunter” unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with a flattened exhaust outlet at the MAKS international air show on 27 August.

The nozzle, which conforms to the flying wing’s shape, shows that the Russian military aircraft manufacturer intends to make its UAV stealthier than the initial prototype that it began flying on 7 August. That aircraft’s engine exhaust tip was exposed, a design which could raise the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) and infrared signature.
However, the aircraft model looks similar to Western flying wing UAVs such as the Dassault Neuron, BAE Systems Taranis and Northrop Grumman X-47B. The flying wing shape should give it less radar cross section.

Image
Image


A temporary solution which will continue maybe 15-20 years.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2019, 21:38
by milosh
falcon.16 wrote:A temporary solution which will continue maybe 15-20 years.


Offical plan is 2024/2025 and I think it is possible because new chief of RuAF is fan of drones, he is ex-army and he isn't pleased about what RuAF can do for boots on ground. That is one reason why Su-57 orders were reduced and delayed, if ex-pilot is RuAF chief Su-57 would be probable in serial production right now.

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 13:03
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:A temporary solution which will continue maybe 15-20 years.


Offical plan is 2024/2025 and I think it is possible because new chief of RuAF is fan of drones, he is ex-army and he isn't pleased about what RuAF can do for boots on ground. That is one reason why Su-57 orders were reduced and delayed, if ex-pilot is RuAF chief Su-57 would be probable in serial production right now.


Meaning what exactly? The SU-57/Hunter combo will be geared more toward air to ground? Or that Hunter will have A2G capability built in whereas the SU-57 does not? It seems as if the SU-57 was born as a pure fighter, to compete with the F-22. Shortly thereafter, we heard about all of the SU-57's air to ground capabilities being added. And electronic warfare. And a carrier based variant. And a SEAD platform. And a "mothership" to control/ work with Hunter drone. And, and, and...

Maybe its just me, but it feels like they're throwing everything against the wall, hoping something will stick. And thus far, nobody seems to want it: India got cold feet. Syria has come out and said they're not buying it. I doubt the Chinese will need any, unless they're in need of stealing/copying its stage 2 engine (assuming that comes to pass).

Seriously though, I really feel for the SU-57 design team. Sounds like it hasn't been easy!!

Re: Russian UAV/UCAV developments

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2019, 17:18
by milosh
@mixelflick

IMO Su-57 role is primarily to fill gap which retirement of oldest MiG-31 will make in russian AD system.