Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dr.Snufflebug
    Boggleboople snufflebug
    • Aug 2012
    • 524

    Sasha's latest drawing is probably very close to the truth:

    sigpic

    Comment

    • djcross
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2000
      • 5436

      With respect to the 3-view diagram provided by Dr.Snufflebug, one of the issues with an "arrowhead" planform is aft CG. The CG, both empty and MGTOW, is located a only few cm in front of the main landing gear so the jet doesn't crunch its tail while on the ground, yet easily rotates for take off. This means most of the wing volume cannot contain fuel unless some seriously heavy ballast is installed in the nose. Like several thousand kilos of seriously heavy tungsten or lead ballast. Heavy jets require long runways and don't fly as high nor fast as light jets due to the angle of attacked needed to generate lift (induced drag).

      Also, the weapons bays are typically located adjacent to the CG for the same reason. When a couple thousand kilos of forward-mounted weapons are released, there would be a significant nose-up pitching moment which could result in loss of control. Especially since the elevons don't appear to be large and have enough moment arm to counteract the pitching moment.

      Comment

      • LMFS
        Rank 4 Registered User
        • Feb 2018
        • 496

        Marcellogo

        And in line with what you say they indeed seem to be pursuing another supersonic drone for deep strike, as linked some posts above.

        Comment

        • ClanWarrior
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Oct 2007
          • 301

          One thing I do not like about this new drone is the fact that it has a round engine nozzle, it cannot help with all aspect stealth. Compared with the X-47 which has a flat nozzle.

          Comment

          • Marcellogo
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2014
            • 1831

            djcross

            Yes, the fact that such a prototype has been put forth in a very short time should not let us think all problems has already been sorted out.

            The same fact that Mig specialist previously working on SKAT has been transferred at Novosibirsk however means that it has not sprang out of nowhere but has an already set base of knowledge and expertise to start from.

            Flying wings are a quite extreme plane form that would need a lot of work to be mastered but surely the russian State Trials development process, although time consuming, is one of the best way to deal with this kind of teething problems.

            Also because, as the downfall of USN UCLASS program, that I was referring to in my humorous/sarcastic response to Blackwood, clearly show how the problem with UCAV is not just technical but also, if not even more, operative and doctrinal in nature: it is a completely new thing, so you have to found a role for it and in the same time you have to ascertain if it is technically feasible and operatively convenient to perform it with the technology you possess.

            LMFS

            Let's add also Altius/Altair as an HALE ISR platform and the news that they would keep working on the MiG Skat so to have a lighter UCAV also.

            Maybe it is a better approach: instead of trying to develop a single item able to perform all missions an UCAV possibly could, let's try different more specialized ones with different degrees of performances but also complexity and cost.
            So if something turn out to be unfeasible or just of problematic development with actual technological level you can delay or even cancel it without affecting the others.

            Above all it is the approach they use by default, so I surely expect them to keep on that line in developing something in a field where problems can rise up from an infinity of different critical points.

            Comment

            • TomcatViP
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Nov 2011
              • 6065

              Tu-22M3 crash video:



              Originally posted by Scramble magazine on FB
              The crash took place at Olenegorsk/Vysokiy air base (Russia), homebase of the Tu-22M3 (RF-94159, bort number 35 red). The strategic bomber belonged to 6950th Guards Air Base, Guards Kyiv Red Banner Order of Suvorov, 2nd degree, 6950th Naval Missile-carying Aviation Group (6950 MRAvG). The aircraft landed in bad weather, it touched down hard (7.13G!!) at the runway (the Tu-22 limit is 4G). It had reportedly one Kh-22N (a large, long-range anti-ship missile) onboard.

              For more details see our first (breaking) reports: https://www.facebook.com/Scramblemagazine/
              I am not convinced its legit b/w
              Last edited by TomcatViP; 27th January 2019, 15:49.

              Comment

              • Objekt
                Registered User
                • Jan 2019
                • 5

                Analysis of 'Okhotnik' -

                Thick wing and lack of tail - unsuited for supersonic flight.
                Low-bypass ratio afterburning engine, unsuited for subsonic flight.
                No engine nozzle cover, engine visible from frontal angles.
                Nose shape breaks single continuous angle of leading edge.
                Trailing edge has less angle than leading edge. No or minimal serration cutback.

                Conclusion: stealth limited, think is flying wing testbed for PAK DA program.

                Comment

                • haavarla
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 6672

                  Low-bypass ratio afterburning engine, unsuited for subsonic flight.



                  What now!?
                  And here i was under the impression that a certain group of Grievers has like pointed out a Trillion time that None of the Flanker Family is a Supercruiser due to the AL-31F engine Linage, yes even the Idz 117 simply is not anywhere close to other Engines, for Supercruise.

                  Lmao! Now where do you think the Flanker's spend most of their time when flying, Subsonic or Supersonic
                  When they set about to design military jet engines, any jet engine. They goes at length to make them efficient in Both Subsonic and supersonic speed.

                  Using a Idz 117 engine here, is a well written trick in the book to make development of said design that much cheaper, faster and easier.
                  Around 9.000 Kgf of dry thrust is not bad, not in the slightest form.

                  If this is indeed that Idz 117 engine, one would logical conclude they removed the whole wet Thrust section of the Engine. Should save you some weight and possible have a higher TBOH ratio as it does not use wet thrust.
                  Seriously, if you meant to use to word "NOT OPTIMIZED" for Subsonic flight, then for god sake Man! That also goes for pretty much 70% of every Jet engine on Military planes out there.
                  There is a far cry between "unsuited" and "not optimized" for Subsonic flight.

                  No engine nozzle cover, engine visible from frontal angles.



                  In which after much dismay from the Grievers, the later prototypes of Su-57 has indeed Engine covered..



                  Trailing edge has less angle than leading edge. No or minimal serration cutback.



                  The clever thing about UAV's is that you can make do with a simpler Planform Aligement, simply due to the fact that the design is a Flying wing.
                  So how does this flying wing compare with other flying wings in terms of planform aligement?

                  I'm not sure i should mention this.. but why have you failed to mention the BANANA AIR DUCT..
                  BANANA DUCT!?
                  Last edited by haavarla; 28th January 2019, 17:23.
                  Thanks

                  Comment

                  • Objekt
                    Registered User
                    • Jan 2019
                    • 5

                    Engine has afterburner nozzle. "Wet thrust" section not removed. Aircraft never go supersonic, no point low-bypass ratio engine. Better range / less fuel volume with medium/high bypass ratio engine. Subsonic airframe with low bypass ratio engine = ****.

                    Flying wing airframe very center of gravity sensitive. Engine cover change center of gravity, require changes, long design time.

                    Planform alignment bad. Stealth = ****.

                    Intake and engine in line. Duct straight. Stealth = ****.

                    Testbed and propaganda only.

                    Comment

                    • TomcatViP
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Nov 2011
                      • 6065

                      Does any of you guys have any comment on the Tu-22M3 crash video posted above?

                      Comment

                      • Dr.Snufflebug
                        Boggleboople snufflebug
                        • Aug 2012
                        • 524

                        If we're to take the various amateur drawings/interpretations literally (and honestly, we probably shouldn't do that just yet as they're essentially wild interpolations based on lackluster visual material), it has the exact same "planform alignment" as for instance the (very similar, but smaller) Dassault Neuron, RQ-170, Phantom Ray, the Chinese "Sharp Sword" (Li-Jian) or why not the good old F-117 for that matter. That is, the trailing edge is somewhat less swept.

                        All of the drones (not the F-117, but it isn't a drone) above similarly have their engine in line with the intake , but obviously the engine face is wholly or partially hidden from the front. That's fairly easy to do when you wanna stay subsonic and don't have to bother with managing high airflow velocities. The Chinese "Sharp Sword" prototype has a borderline identical rear end for that matter, and nothing suggests it's anything but a temporary thing during development.

                        Regarding the engine in general, obviously you cannot "x-ray" some still JPEGs and determine how the engine is set up. The nozzle comes straight from a legacy turbine, but that says absolutely nothing whatsoever about what kind of speed regime it's eventually meant to operate in etc. We can however look at all the other flying wing drones out there, that are look very similar to one another (except the X-47B, which has a cranked leading edge, and thus according to the experts here cannot possibly be any stealthy) and are subsonic by design (for a plethora of reasons), and reasonably assume that this one is meant to be too.

                        God, why do I even bother.

                        Originally posted by TomcatViP
                        Does any of you guys have any comment on the Tu-22M3 crash video posted above?
                        What kind of comments are you looking for? It is indeed a legit video, and it was a heavily-laden (two Kh-22's, nearly full fuel) plane that touched down way too hard in near-blind visual conditions. According to Russian media, the plane was from '86 but had flown rather little, and was inspected and overhauled completely six years ago.

                        There are speculations that the radar altimeter might have malfunctioned, or the ILS on the ground, but most say somebody likely made a grave misjudgment somewhere, with either the pilots messing up bigtime, ground control not doing their job properly (for example by not forcing them to redirect when conditions were that bad), or both messing up in a fatal synergy. But, the investigation is ongoing so, nothing's quite determined yet.

                        RIP to the crewmembers that died, at any rate. The way it just slams into the ground and splits in half looks absolutely horrific.
                        Last edited by Dr.Snufflebug; 28th January 2019, 19:12.
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • SpudmanWP
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2009
                          • 5288

                          I was thinking ILS error that lead to the wrong glidepath being used.
                          "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                          Comment

                          • Trident
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2004
                            • 3963

                            Aircraft never go supersonic, no point low-bypass ratio engine. Better range / less fuel volume with medium/high bypass ratio engine. Subsonic airframe with low bypass ratio engine = ****.
                            High bypass ratio engine means large intake duct diameter which conflicts with the requirement for a serpentine duct for low RCS, however - you can only lower the length/diameter ratio of such a duct so far without risking flow separation in the bends. And the assumption that the nozzle will stay that way is just asinine (how the hell do people come up with this?!), the leaked image of the full-scale mock-up (?) and silhouettes on Su-57 #053 show a stealthy rear end.

                            RIP to the crewmembers that died, at any rate. The way it just slams into the ground and splits in half looks absolutely horrific.
                            Yes, very fast approach and no flare - one source claims the touch down was >7g, which I suspect would be far in excess of ultimate load for an aircraft like this. No way it was going to stay in once piece if true, perhaps the apparent white-out contributed to the misjudged flight path?
                            Last edited by Trident; 28th January 2019, 20:49.
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • FBW
                              FBW
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 3295

                              Low bypass turbofan....
                              First off, as far as current Russian turbofans likely to fit into a UCAV, the AL-31F has a comparatively high bypass ratio (if indeed that is what is fitted). No definitive numbers for the -117 series though one would assume they have a lower bpr.

                              Second, it likely a demonstrator. Why wouldnt they use exsisting turbofan for a development/test airframe? Its unlikely to retain afterburning section and con-di nozzle as a production vehicle, excess weight and signature issues.

                              The irony- typical arguments on here:
                              New Russian UCAV isnt stealthy, look at nozzle and finish etc.
                              or
                              UCAV is mature technology and will be in service next month because Russia builds smarter and faster

                              Neither, reminds me of the early arguments over the Su-57. Those of us who argued early prototypes pointed to a gradual evolutionary maturation and refinement proved prescient. Id say the same applies here. The Okhotnik may just be a technology demonstrator, a granddaddy of future combat UCAV. Either way, I wouldnt expect an entry into service in the near future, and will probably evolve considerably between then and now.

                              Comment

                              • Objekt
                                Registered User
                                • Jan 2019
                                • 5

                                Okhotnik planform alignment not RQ-170, Neuron, F-117. Trailing edge near zero angle. Drawings wrong.

                                RQ-170 high bypass engine. No excuse Okhotnik have low-bypass.

                                Demonstrator maybe. Think PAK DA testbed. Not prototype.

                                Comment

                                • Trident
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2004
                                  • 3963

                                  Okhotnik planform alignment not RQ-170, Neuron, F-117. Trailing edge near zero angle. Drawings wrong.
                                  How d'you figure? The angle from which the recently published photos are taken make the trailing edge configuration hard to discern, but even so it is clear that it's NOT "zero angle".

                                  Quite apart from this, are the Okhotnik outlines painted by the very company who developed it on Su-57 #053 and the leaked photo of the full-scale mock-up, which all show a nEuron- or X-45-like trailing edge configuration, wrong too?

                                  RQ-170 high bypass engine. No excuse Okhotnik have low-bypass.
                                  RQ-170 engine type is not confirmed AFAIK, but in any case it doesn't have an s-duct intake, as images of the crashed example from Iran indicate. There is a mesh screen in the inlet face instead (F-117-style).

                                  As an ISR, rather than strike, platform RQ-170 is also biased toward even higher endurance, so it is subject to a somewhat different set of priorities. If you compare other UCAV demonstrators, Okhotnik fits right in with a non-reheated derivative of a low-bypass fighter engine (AL-31F or 117S, likely BPR in the 0.5 to 0.6 range):

                                  - X-45C (Phantom Ray) has a dry F404 with a bypass ratio of 0.2 to 0.3 (!)
                                  - X-47B has a non-reheated F100 with a BPR of 0.6, so pretty much identical to Okhotnik
                                  - nEuron has a RR/TM Adour with a bypass ratio of 1.0 to 1.5
                                  - Taranis same as nEuron
                                  - B-2A (not unmanned, but in many ways similar) has a dry F110 (F118) with a BPR of 0.8

                                  Even 1.5 isn't what you'd call "high BPR" by any stretch of the imagination!

                                  If there's anything for which there's no excuse here, it's your failure to fact-check even the most basic things before making such confident pronouncements...
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • Objekt
                                    Registered User
                                    • Jan 2019
                                    • 5

                                    Okhotnik outlines propaganda. Fanboy fall for propaganda.

                                    X-45C X-47B Neuron Taranis all concept demonstrator. Not operational drone.

                                    B-2 old 1980 design. Low bypass known weakness limitation 1980 inlet technology. B-21 higher bypass engines.

                                    Okhotnik demonstrator only. Not operational drone. Fanboy fall for propaganda.

                                    Comment

                                    • Trident
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2004
                                      • 3963

                                      X-45C X-47B Neuron Taranis all concept demonstrator. Not operational drone.

                                      Okhotnik demonstrator only. Not operational drone.
                                      I don't disagree with that at all. It's just not even close to what you originally claimed. Nice attempt at moving the goal posts.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • Marcellogo
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2014
                                        • 1831

                                        U-TURN alert, U-TURN Alert, U-TURN alert!!!

                                        MOSCOW, January 29. / TASS /. The systems of the newest Russian heavy assault unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Hunter are being tested on board the 5th generation fighter Su-57 due to the delayed flight tests of the device itself. This was announced on Wednesday TASS source in the military-industrial complex.

                                        On the third prototype of the Su-57, Okhotniks onboard radio-electronic systems are installed, they are tested in flight on this fighter. The UAV does not fly, its first flight dates have been shifted since last year, the agencys source said. He explained that "the testing of the UAV systems on the Su-57, in the absence of flight tests of the apparatus itself, allows not stopping work on other components of the Okhotnik design work.

                                        The source noted that the tests are carried out at the Novosibirsk Aviation Plant "Sukhoi". "The onboard - onboard communication between the onboard radio electronic equipment (avionics) of the Hunter on the Su-57 in flight and the equipment of the Hunter itself on the plant strip) is also being tested. - said the source. He did not specify the dates for the start of flight tests of the Hunter.

                                        The United Aircraft Corporation did not comment on the TASS information provided by the source.
                                        -----------

                                        So, all considerations made about Su-57 directly controlling Okhotnik drone made (by me also) basing ourself just on the pictogram on 3th prototype have to be considered as purely speculative assumptions according to the above article.
                                        Sigh!
                                        Last edited by Marcellogo; 29th January 2019, 21:15.

                                        Comment

                                        • stealthflanker
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Sep 2015
                                          • 1010


                                          A concept what i think about a Stealthy cargo aircraft, with high bypass engine. The size of CFM-56. Notice the engine "bulge" near aft. That's the part containing the whole engine assembly. If Okhotnik is to be built with high bypass engine, it will have oversized bulge which increase weight beyond what probably acceptable. Second There is no real Russian equivalent to Garrett TF-34, something with small engine core ( that's how you can get high bypass in 1 meter diameter) So they just have to make do with what is available. It is either a fighter engine or a full blown turbofan like PS-90 or D-30KP. The latter of which one would complain again because it only have bypass ratio of 1. Not much of a high bypass they said.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X