Russia’s Stealthy Strike UAV. Deadlier Than Expected
Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson
Introduction
While overall the Russian Armed Forces display remarkable effectiveness and demonstrated a wide range of modern weapons, a number of gaps in Russia’s arsenal are also evident. Arguably the largest one is the absence of attack UAVs of any kind, comparable to either the propeller-driven Predators and Reapers intended for operations in a benign air defense environment, or heavier platforms intended for high-threat environments comparable to the US X-47B UCAS or France’s Neuron. It is therefore no surprise that there was an upsurge in reports of UAVs of various classes under development in Russia, up to and including the S-70 Okhotnik-B, under development by OKB Sukhoi, whose first flight is planned for 2019.
Design
Okhotnik closely follows the blended-fuselage flying wing configuration used by the other heavy strike UAV’s mentioned above. Like the X-47B, It is powered by a single turbofan engine with an intake on top of the fuselage, and its design most likely includes an internal ordnance bay for a variety of guided and unguided munitions. Most published estimates of Okhotnik’s capabilities suggest take-off weight in the vicinity of 20 metric tons and a top speed of around 1000km/hr. Like the X-47B, the combination of relatively small size and stealth would allow the Okhotnik to carry out airstrikes against heavily defended targets and survive even advanced air defenses. While a heavy, stealthy strike UAV is not exactly expendable, it is certainly more likely to be risked than a manned combat aircraft that costs several times more than the UAV. Heavy strike UAVs are therefore seen as a complement to scarcer and more expensive manned aircraft in situations where heavy air defenses are present.
Capabilities
Nevertheless, one probably should not expect the Okhotnik to be a carbon-copy of the Neuron or the X-47B, and for all the similarities there are also differences. The X-47B design emphasizes stealth including in the infrared spectrum, with an evident effort to reduce the heat of its turbofan exhaust, with the UAV being capable of sustaining only high subsonic speeds. By contrast, while the Okhotnik is officially described as having the top speed of only 920km/hour, its design is dominated by the powerful AL-41F afterburning turbofan which proved too large for installation on the Su-57, suggesting the Okhotnik might actually be capable of supersonic speeds and even of sustaining supersonic cruise without the need for afterburner, an important characteristic of 5th generation combat aircraft. In addition, on-board sensors aboard the X-47B are fairly limited, while the photos of the Okhotnik clearly show a nose radome, suggesting an on-board radar.
Given that the Okhotnik is being developed by the same design bureau that produced the Su-57, with that aircraft’s technologies being incorporated into its design in order for the two machines to be able to operate as a team, it stands to reason the fully developed Okhotnik will be capable of supersonic cruise—a necessary capability if it is to operate as part of the same mission package as the Su-57—and of air-to-air engagements. Unlike the F-35 which is primarily an attack aircraft with a secondary air-to-air capability, the Su-57’s main mission is air combat, both within and beyond visual range. By the same token, while US combat UAVs of the last couple of decades have been designed exclusively for ground strike missions while under the control of a land-based operator from a remote location, Russia’s defense priorities are sufficiently different from the US and NATO to warrant different expectations for the Okhotnik. Given the need to fend off attacks by vastly larger numbers of F-22 and F-35s, the outnumbered Su-57 force would benefit from stealthy, supercruising Okhotniks with air-to-air sensors and weapons that could be vectored against the adversary’s stealth aircraft while the Su-57s themselves remain out of the range of enemy weapons.
Conclusion
The recently published information on Russian military procurement plans plainly indicate the very high priority being afforded to maintaining the ability to wage air and air defense operations against a technologically sophisticated adversary. This emphasis is a reasonable response to the US plans to rapidly ramp-up F-35 deliveries both to its own military and to its allies. But even with that emphasis, the cost of 5th generation fighters is such that Russia cannot possibly hope to match US and NATO in terms of numbers, and probably cannot afford the development of a small 5th-generation fighter that could be produced in larger numbers than the Su-57. But if a “hi–lo” mix of platforms comparable to the Su-27—MiG-29 or F-15—F-16 or even F-22—F-35 is to be maintained by the Russian Aerospace Forces, the “lo” part of the mix could well be filled by an unmanned platform.
This is ridiculous…and is what you get when unqualified people with zero training in aerodynamics decide to write about the subject…
The shape of this aircraft DOES NOT make supersonic flight a remote possibility…a flying wing supersonic aircraft is basically a physical impossibility…not to mention that the SONIC BOOM would destroy any stealth the aircraft might possess…
The shape of a supersonic airplane is very different to that of a subsonic airplane, for basic reasons of physics… a supersonic wing needs to be very thin and have a sharp leading edge, not thick and rounded as on the SU70 ‘Okhotnik’ aircraft…the fuselage needs to be long and pointy in order to deal with the shock wave effects…
There is much more…transitioning from subsonic to supersonic flight speed shifts the center of lift in the aft direction, causing the aircraft nose to pitch down…the tailless flying wing configuration has neither the fuselage length nor the longitudinal stability to handle this…[incidentally this aft shift in the center of lift and the resulting ‘Mach tuck’ was a major hazard for early supersonic test pilots]…
Most jet fighters are designed only for short bursts at supersonic speed…the F22 is designed to fly about 100 nautical miles in supersonic…use of afterburners [technically called reheat] is not a major factor as it is made out to be in the popular press and all the hoopla about ‘supercruise’…the MiG31 is the only airplane in service that is designed specifically to fly its full mission at supersonic speed…and it uses reheat to cruise at Mach 2.4 quite efficiently…
The reason the Okhotnik has a conventional engine nozzle, as opposed to the so-called ‘stealth type’ is the fact that it is pointless to try to reduce the infrared signature…the amount of infrared radiation is strictly a function of exhaust gas temperature…and the only way to reduce temperature is to reduce engine power…which means flying slowly…like so much else, the so-called ‘stealth’ nozzle treatments are an MIC gimmick designed to extract taxpayer funds and nothing more…basic physics tells us that radiation moves in all directions simultaneously, so there is no possible way to change that…that is why the Su57 doesn’t have this gimmick, nor some of the other gimmicks on US ‘stealth’ aircraft…
So-called stealth itself is basically a gimmick, and is useful only from a certain aspect, specifically the head-on aspect from a radar at the same height… this is again basic physics of radio wave propagation, as first articulated by Ufimtsev…the ‘father of stealth’…
The Okhotnik will never fly supersonic in a million years…unbelievable the kind of nonsense one sees on the internet…
“unbelievable the kind of nonsense one sees on the internet”
You must be new to the web. :)
But yes, not supersonic.
The conclusion in this article is somewhat misleading. Commentators have a habit of comparing the Russian military to the US military and to NATO, which in many cases is pointless, especially when it comes to numbers. The Russian military doctrine is based on defense, not on offense. In that sense Russia has more than enough combat aircraft and AA missile systems to defeat any NATO attack. This military doctrine based on defense has contributed to the low Defense Budget, as compared to the American one, which has been maintained at the expense of both maintaining and improving US infrastructure. Not wise.
on the comment by FB
may I kindly bring to your attention the very successful tailless supersonic types Convair F 102, Convair F 106 And the Concorde. Admitted they had thin wings and suffered the consequences at subsonic speeds.
And that other Convair, the B-58 “Hustler”.
But notice that all have a long, area-ruled fuselage for longitudinal stability with relatively narrow wingspan.
FB is talking about Flying Wing design (examples B2, Ho 229), which is very different from Delta Wing design (F102, F106, Concorde).
A delta wing is not a tailless aircraft…the movable horizontal tail surfaces…aka ‘elevator’ or ‘elevons’ [combination elevator and aileron] are on the trailing edge of the delta wing…[also those types you mentioned have a conventional vertical tail]
There are basically two configurations that work for supersonic flight…a delta wing with a lot of sweep, or a straight stubby wing with very low aspect ratio like the F104…the reason is the shock wave…the pointy nose must be well out in front so that the shock wave is basically a V and the wing [either delta or very short straight wing] sits in behind that shock wave…a flying wing like the B2 cannot possibly be supersonic since its wing will be right in the shockwave…also the wings on these aircraft have a very high aspect ratio for good subsonic performance [ie the ratio of wingspan to wing chord]…a supersonic aircraft MUST have a low aspect ratio…
A flying wing could conceivably be supersonic IF it had a long fuselage tail and forebody also…as well as very short and thin wings…one such concept published by Nasa is a so-called bi-directional configuration…where the airplane rotates 90 degrees about its vertical axis in order to fly in TWO different configurations…each optimized for the subsonic and supersonic role, respectively… https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phase_I_fellows_zha.html
This has nothing to do with the Okhotnik…which is a purely subsonic airplane…as any aerodynamicist will tell you by looking at its shape…
Thank you for the explanations.
Combat drones can loiter in enemy territory for hours and can function as a loitering munition by carrying missiles/bombs or itself the munition (eg. the Israeli Skystriker). Note the 2 known incidents of Syrian Pantsir-S1 damaged/destroyed by Delilah cruise/loitering missile (2018) and the latest Skystriker (suicide drone diving at max 300knots/154 m/s) amid other radar equipment hit using waves of attack.
Long, medium, short and pin-point air defense systems protects against vital military installations and positions. But what protects these AD systems against a determined enemy?
If Israel on a daily basis launches attacks that could potentially destroy or damage one or 2 important component of Syrian AD systems, such as 1 Pantsir S1, destroyed per night, it would require at least 40 days to neutralize most of these point defense systems.
Is there a cost effective way to protect vital AD systems from daily swarming attacks to the tune of neutralizing at least 50-150 approaching munitions per night/day on a single AD position?
Can the Arena Active Protection System or similar systems be designed and improved to fit into a Toyota pickup truck that could hold at least 50 charges, with each covering an area of protection for the AD systems? Over lapping if possible. Arena APS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpmcmKwWzYo
If the cost of a single Arena explosive charge cost $1000 (not the entire system), the munition cost of a successful protected AD systems would be incredibly low. Lets say 50-100 charges where used per day at AD sites, while the enemy used 400 missiles, drones and glide bombs per day versus various targets in Syria without effective damaging AD systems. $50k – 100k per day protecting Syrian AD systems vs millions wasted by the enemy. Those small Arena charges probably are easier and quicker to produce that those cruise missiles and drones…
Is it feasible?
Soulless hunters: Should the West beware of new Russian heavyweight drones?
https://www.rt.com/russia/451613-russian-military-drone-hunter/
“Around 70 Russian drones have already been deployed in Syria. Their mission has proven to be successful, the military says, as Forpost and Orlan-10 models spotted more than 47,000 enemy targets.
Russia doesn’t yet have a full-fledged attack drone, however. The Okhotnik project is designed to change that. Developed by the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer, it boasts a takeoff weight of 25 tons and an operational range of 5,000km. The first images of the drone, leaked last month, showed a flying wing-type aircraft rolled out on an airstrip during testing.
Media reports suggested that the UAV will not only be effective during solo missions, but also paired up with the newest 5th-gen supersonic stealth jet fighter Su-57. It is intended that the plane would enter battles after the drone has “penetrated” the enemy’s air defenses, sources told Interfax in January, adding that the drone will be “controlled” by the crew of the incoming jet.
Another drone set to enter service en masse this year is Orion. Known as Type 90 during its production stage, this medium UAV weighs in at around 1,000kg. It is capable of conducting 24-hour flights and striking targets with guided missiles, as well as 25kg and 50kg bombs. The aircraft was showcased during an arms expo last year and underwent testing in Syria.
Russia’s push for getting sophisticated drones was validated by the air campaign in Syria, where UAVs made “a significant contribution” in pinpointing targets and surveillance, military expert Aleksey Leonkov explained. The Soviet drone tech was comparable to the one in the US but it was later nearly completely wiped out during the 1990s, he said. Most projects were “placed into deep freeze or suspended,” but now the war in Syria has given them a new start.”
My guess is the Okhotnik is mainly for detecting and knocking out ground assets along with some EW support capability.