Military Review

UAV "Hunter" has a chance to become a long-range interceptor

99

The Russian-made S-70 “Okhotnik” strike-reconnaissance UAV may become a long-range interceptor. At the same time, artificial intelligence will allow him to operate autonomously.


About this news agency TASS said a source in the aircraft industry who attended the Army 2020 International Military-Technical Forum. He said that the use of the S-70 as a long-range interceptor is an initiative of the Russian Defense Ministry.

A drone equipped with appropriate weapons will be located "at a distant approach", at a distance of several thousand kilometers, and destroy Aviation, missiles, drones and other means of attack of the enemy even before they find themselves in the zone of operation of Russian air defense systems. The Okhotnik will be controlled by satellites, ground stations and new fifth-generation Su-57 fighters. By the way, joint tests showed that the S-70 and the aircraft are capable of effectively interacting.


But this does not mean that the UAV will be deprived of the ability to act independently. On the contrary, the presence of artificial intelligence will allow it to independently find targets, report on them and destroy them.

Actually, there is nothing fantastic in the idea of ​​using a drone for long-range interception. I think its characteristics are quite suitable for solving the tasks assigned to it. Moreover, no one expects that the "Okhotnik" will leave the air defense and missile defense systems without work, it just will greatly facilitate their work, weakening the enemy's attack.

The flight range of the S-70, which is supposedly 3,5 thousand kilometers, makes it possible to use it in hundreds and even thousands of kilometers from the "launch pad". And the volume of the payload that this device is capable of carrying allows it to place on board both sufficient weapons and special radar equipment. In addition, it can stay in the air without landing for quite a long time, according to some sources, more than a day. And the ability to control it remotely has already been confirmed during tests.

Of course, this is only an assumption, but it is unlikely that a drone will require weapons and ammunition that are fundamentally different from those already in service with Russian aviation. Given its weight and dimensions, it can be assumed that the drone will be armed with the same bombs and missiles that the Russian Aerospace Forces are successfully using today.

Of course, the device also has weak points. In particular, many critics of this drone draw attention to the fact that it does not have sufficient stealth for radars, although stealth technology was used in its production. And its lack of maneuverability makes it vulnerable to enemy fighters.

It is clear that high-speed and maneuverable air combat against enemy fighter aircraft is not for the Hunter. But he is quite capable of staying in the air for a long time and reacting to the emerging danger.

Actually, the main advantage of the Russian heavy shock-reconnaissance drone is its modularity and multitasking. It can be equipped with different equipment and weapons, depending on the task assigned to it.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/, TerHussein
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 06: 24 New
    -8
    He said that the use of the S-70 as a long-range interceptor is an initiative of the Russian Defense Ministry.
    So the state order is guaranteed?
    "- So we will still live?
    - It doesn't mean anything "(from an anecdote)
    1. YOUR
      YOUR 28 August 2020 06: 25 New
      12
      Guaranteed. Su-57 is guaranteed to be produced from 29.05.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX. None have been built yet.
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 28 August 2020 07: 41 New
        10
        The flight range of the S-70, which is supposedly 3,5 thousand kilometers, makes it possible to use it in hundreds and even thousands of kilometers from the "launch pad" ..... In addition, it can stay in the air without landing for quite a long time, according to some data, more than a day.

        The author, can you "cut the sturgeon"?
        3500/2 = 1250, not "thousand kilometers" ..
        "More than a day without landing" is generally beyond the bounds. In glider mode or what? laughing Or clarify that with refueling, if he certainly knows how
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 28 August 2020 15: 26 New
          +5
          Alex, 3: 500 = 2 km ..
          The range depends on the payload, flight speed, the presence of a PTB, the possibility of refueling in the air. hi
          1. Mitroha
            Mitroha 28 August 2020 18: 30 New
            -2
            Exactly. I'm sorry. hi Not "thousands" anyway
            I wrote about refueling
      2. Boris55
        Boris55 28 August 2020 08: 08 New
        -10
        Quote: YOUR
        None have been built yet.

        Are these cartoons?

        1. Alex 2020
          Alex 2020 28 August 2020 12: 07 New
          +7
          There are no serial ones yet. Under construction. And these are experimental vehicles, practically naked (without some electronic equipment, etc.)
        2. dauria
          dauria 28 August 2020 12: 14 New
          +2
          Are these cartoons?


          No, Boris, not a cartoon. This is just a front-line fighter Su-57. And in order to use it for long-range interception, you need a group - an AWACS aircraft, a tanker aircraft and a Su-57 unit.
          This is how the Americans greet our bombers over the North Pole. Before dumping the "cargo" If dumped, you need a lot of fighters with a bunch of small missiles against inconspicuous non-maneuvering targets against the background of the earth.
          Where is the place for the "hunter" - I do not see. There was a Tu-128 machine specifically for this - it was outdated. In order not to throw out the MiG-25, they adapted it for interception and named it the MiG-31.
          Now the Amer B-21 platform is perfect for this role.
          And "Okhotnik" .... I don't even know where to put a large batch. The radius is small, the speed is also small, with a road locator, without a locator - it is also not cheap, it does not pull on a "consumable". A small batch is not worth doing.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 28 August 2020 13: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: dauria
            And "Okhotnik" .... I don't even know where to put a large batch. The radius is small, the speed is also small, with a road locator, without a locator - it is also not cheap, it does not pull on a "consumable". A small batch is not worth doing.

            But from this place in more detail, citizen. I see you participated in the development of the Hunter, and therefore it is good and, most importantly, reliably, you know his performance characteristics. fellow
            1. dauria
              dauria 28 August 2020 14: 13 New
              0
              and therefore takh well and most importantly reliably, you know his performance characteristics

              No, sir, did not participate. Just start dancing from the engine and the aerodynamic design and you will have completely similar designs.
              X-47V. He flew, refueled, landed on an aircraft carrier and an airfield. He never went into production. Not really figured out where to attach.
              Length: 11,63 m
              Swipe: 18,92 m
              Height: 3,10 m
              Empty mass: 6350 kg
              Maximum takeoff weight: 20 215 kg
              Payload weight 2000 kg
              Engine: 1 Pratt & Whitney F100-220 turbojet
              Thrust: 8074 kg (79,1 kN)

              Maximum speed: 990 km / h
              Cruising speed: Mach 0,45 (535 km / h)
              Distance: 3900 km
              Ceiling: 12 190 m
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 28 August 2020 15: 04 New
                -1
                Quote: dauria
                Just start dancing from the engine and the aerodynamic design and you will have completely similar designs.
                X-47V. He flew, refueled, landed on an aircraft carrier and an airfield. He never went into production. Not really figured out where to attach.

                Masterpiece, citizen! fellow Judging one car by looking at another is like judging a Mercedes by looking at a BMW. You made my day! fellow
                1. dauria
                  dauria 28 August 2020 15: 30 New
                  +6
                  You made my day!

                  Well, at least I did something good in a day. wink I can still. So, they will try to convert it into a refueling tanker. Then they will realize that for this it is easier and better to use a large-scale ready-made transport vehicle.
                  Then they will try to make an operational-tactical depth scout. But in the conditions of air defense, nothing shines for him, and pistons with a straight long wing will be enough for babaykas on jeeps
                  They will pomp again, sigh and drag him to the museum in Monino.
                  1. Grazdanin
                    Grazdanin 28 August 2020 16: 12 New
                    +5
                    The hunter looks more like a flying laboratory. If so then it makes sense. Work out various technologies on one machine. As an independent machine, it has no prospects. We have no tasks for the Hunter.
          2. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 August 2020 19: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: dauria
            In order not to throw out the MiG-25, they adapted it for interception and named it the MiG-31.

            Well, that's why, there is only a diagram and remained
        3. YOUR
          YOUR 30 August 2020 06: 31 New
          +2
          These are ten experimental. Not a single aircraft has been transferred to the troops. They are not in service. The fact that you showed a regular commercial.
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 28 August 2020 06: 26 New
    +3
    will be located "on the distant approaches", at a distance of several thousand kilometers
    And how many of them are needed to cover the entire perimeter?
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 06: 34 New
      -2
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      And how many of them are needed to cover the entire perimeter?

      Dear, we have such a perimeter ......... Mulion is not enough to block everything hi
      1. venik
        venik 28 August 2020 08: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Dear, we have such a perimeter ......... Mulion is not enough to block everything

        ========
        Yah??? The MiG-31 link covers an area of ​​1 km (along the front) !!! I think a bunch of 000 Su-1 and 57-2 "Okhotnikov" is capable of covering at least 3-500 km!
        1. Ryaruav
          Ryaruav 28 August 2020 09: 33 New
          -1
          while the human brain is not able to replace artificial intelligence the simplest example: if the radar is clogged with interference or the refusal of the person continues the attack, but if this fucking artificial brain can work like a human, then write lost humanity will be destroyed this laws of philosophy and physics
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 28 August 2020 10: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Ryaruav
            if the radar is jammed or a failure

            Quasi-IR has long been working through an optical channel. Analyzing information from cameras. This is already happening faster than a person. Tesla autopilot as an example.
          2. Simargl
            Simargl 29 August 2020 18: 54 New
            0
            Quote: Ryaruav
            if the radar is jammed or refusal, the person will continue the attack
            Recently, the AI ​​has dealt with the instructor dry (5: 0). True, on the simulator. AI is not just a program, but a program that learns. Only if training a pilot and AI requires 200 hours of flights, and for 10 - 2000 hours, then for training a UAV with AI - the same 200 hours for everything. In addition, AI can learn "on its own", on a supercomputer platform, millions of battles.

            Quote: Ryaruav
            now if this fucking artificial brain can work like a human, then write lost humanity will be destroyed
            Man is a fairly multitasking creature and is not imprisoned for life in the digital world. AI tailored for a specific task will do everything better.
        2. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 10: 19 New
          -1
          SPECIAL FOR Losers! The length of the Russian borders is 60 km
          Quote: venik
          The MiG-31 link covers an area of ​​1 km (along the front) !!! I think a bunch of 000 Su-1 and 57-2 "Okhotnikov" is capable of covering at least 3-500 km!

          Can you share it yourself? Mulion - as you know, a joke. A 6-8 aircraft per thousand km ...... runs up. hiAnd this is a park only for guard-interception.
    2. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 28 August 2020 07: 39 New
      -6
      A squad of one Su-57 and four such hunters will control a large area, several dozen such units will block the north from attack by strategic bombers.
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 28 August 2020 09: 41 New
        +3
        you at least create a link from the su-57 with engines of the 5th generation and there you look and a flock of hunters on the way, you see the situation in the Russian navy, so this is the same story as with the t-14 and a cloud of cars based on it and forever flying missiles that are still nowhere do not fly from the range
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 28 August 2020 14: 21 New
          -4
          Your opus is a little unclear, should I personally create a su-57? And you can ask why me? For this, there are specialists, they assemble the plane. And what is this fifth generation engine? How does it differ from the fourth and who has it at all?
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 10: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: Herman 4223
        several dozen such links will block the north from attack by strategic bombers.

        "Is everything calm in Baghdad?" DV? China? crying crying
        1. Herman 4223
          Herman 4223 28 August 2020 14: 30 New
          -3
          I don’t know in Baghdad, I haven’t been there. Fly in and see, then tell us.
  3. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 28 August 2020 06: 45 New
    +3
    I doubt that this tactic is effective. Rather, he is destined for the role of a helmet on a stick raised above the trench to identify the enemy's sniper position.
    1. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 28 August 2020 07: 27 New
      -2
      There are cheaper unmanned aerial vehicles for the helmets above the trench, this one will strike at targets covered by air defense, or suppress the latter.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 28 August 2020 08: 33 New
        +2
        You did not understand. In my article about the role of an interceptor, not a drummer. In this context, the UAV plays the role of a leader and a "red rag" for unobtrusive purposes. There are false baits of the MALD type, but they are needed when it is known exactly where to break through and against whom. A lone tanker will be able to intercept, but the same AWACS that does not fly out without cover even in peacetime is unlikely. The maximum is to create the necessary level of threat so that subtle targets show themselves for the main strike group following the Hunter. Or against the same UAV in dogfight, unload the enemy. In addition, due to the fact that it will be disclosed it will not be supersonic at all, for a quick response to the situation this is already a limitation.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 28 August 2020 10: 06 New
          +5
          For a false target, the Hunter is incredibly expensive. For dogfight, it has no maneuverability. As Practice shows, the flying wing scheme has 2 applications: reconnaissance and long-range bomber.
          For the tasks you specified, you need a cheap UAV according to the normal scheme.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 28 August 2020 11: 32 New
            -2
            Plus the platform is the arsenal. The same AWACS can control several interceptors while guarding itself. It can be paired with Mig 31. While Migi are supersonic to intercept Hunters on cruising are pulling up to the launch line of long-range explosives. Migs are released on target designation and remain to monitor the situation while Migi go to reload.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 28 August 2020 17: 35 New
              +2
              I like the concept of slave UAVs better. When manned aircraft do not interact with the enemy at all. I think the airborne UAV will appear in service by the end of the decade, work is already underway in the United States. Gremlin project

              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 28 August 2020 17: 51 New
                +1
                Gremlin is not a follower but a so-called parasite. We tried it 100 years ago. Flying aircraft carriers. A controversial decision is an unnecessary intermediate in the form of the Gremlins themselves.
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 28 August 2020 19: 03 New
                  0
                  Yes I know. But it makes sense to unify. Gremlin is a test project, it is not known what will go into the series.
                  Slave UAVs can be controlled from various platforms.
                  It is logical to come to UAVs. The logic of the rapid projection of force is completely covered.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 28 August 2020 19: 16 New
                    0
                    Forgetting that the carrier becomes large, noticeable and unwieldy. And half of the resources will be spent on protection.
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 28 August 2020 19: 28 New
                      0
                      Yeah, so everything will come to the aerial analogue of the AUG. The B21 Concept as an air superiority aircraft was recently reviewed here.
                      If the B-21 Raider receives advanced capabilities for engaging air targets and self-defense, it can become a kind of "flying destroyer" and play the same role that missile destroyers now play as part of an aircraft carrier strike group (AUG), i.e. in fact, the function of striking ground targets can become secondary in relation to the ability to counter enemy aircraft.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 19: 50 New
                        0
                        They tried to transform the still flying fortresses into heavy escort fighters. There is safety in numbers. A group of several is insanely expensive. The sustainability is controversial. Such an aircraft would require very advanced interceptor missiles. And he himself will be noticeable in the IR range.
                      2. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 19: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Such an aircraft would require very advanced interceptor missiles.

                        Yeah, that's why such projects already exist

                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 20: 01 New
                        0
                        In a series? In mass production? What media are used from? Or just thinking about ??? In the long term, the ISDM can and will become an anti-missile. But not in the near future.
                      4. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 20: 06 New
                        +1
                        Are we talking about now or the future? Now, there are no UAVs returned to the carrier. MSDM is planned by 23-24, as well as the slave UAVs. By the year 24-25, a huge amount of the latest weaponry will be tested, which will change the concept of warfare.
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 20: 14 New
                        +2
                        By the 25th year, this rocket will not be in the series. Too high requirements for such a baby. The carrier also moves quickly and puts interference. The target moves many times faster and possibly maneuvers. The swing is good, but not soon.
                      6. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 20: 26 New
                        +1
                        This program is almost 10 years old. Continuation of cuda / sacm. We decided to do even less.
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 21: 04 New
                        +1
                        In the form in which it is today, this program is less than a year old. What was before was rejected. We didn't catch up with the reality. In something they misunderstood in something they were too smart. The project is certainly not out of the blue but separate
                      8. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 21: 15 New
                        0
                        I agree. Microelectronics is developing faster than concepts.
                      9. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 21: 32 New
                        0
                        America is in no hurry. They just don't need it tomorrow. There is no enemy. If the arms race with Russia and China does start, they will strain.
                      10. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 21: 39 New
                        0
                        Again, I don't argue with that. True, China is beginning to strain, with its biorobots.
                      11. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 21: 54 New
                        0
                        China is annoying with arrogance with which it ignores the opinion of others. On the one hand, it delights on the other, strains.
                      12. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 22: 17 New
                        0
                        They are cornered. Hence the impudence.
                      13. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 22: 54 New
                        0
                        They are a self-sufficient continental state. With a huge hidden potential of the economy and a very hardworking people. Not creative but hardworking. In fact, China does not rank first for one simple reason. The first is making a road. And China does not need to spend energy on this.
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 28 August 2020 14: 38 New
    0
    The interceptor must prevent an attack on its own. He flies out to intercept targets that are already known and that need to be at least scared away and not allowed to complete the task, but as a maximum to shoot down. There is no need for a red rag for identification, this is from another opera, and using such an expensive car for this purpose, as it is not decently expensive, can turn out.
  • Zorro21
    Zorro21 30 August 2020 15: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: g1washntwn
    In my article about the role of an interceptor, not a drummer.

    The tactics of using UAVs of this type must first of all correspond to the range of tasks that develops in a specific combat situation. Modern algorithms for combat control of aviation, as you call them "artificial intelligence", allows you to build an optimal course of action in 90% of cases. In the remaining 10%, the participation of a person is undoubtedly necessary, but even then the navigator or pilot will have time to react adequately or not. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a modern UAV of the Okhotnik type in designated patrolling areas will perform its task of intercepting cruise missile-type targets much more efficiently than the same MiG-50, which was specially designed for these purposes 50 years ago.
    On the issue of the struggle for air supremacy, the issue is ambiguous and requires more practical than theoretical research. But one thing can be said with certainty that now in close maneuvering combat, the weakest link of a modern fighter is a man (pilot), who is not only vulnerable to overloads, but also unable to make timely decisions in a rapidly changing environment. ... Even if we do not take into account the probable errors of the pilot ("human factor"), then it is really possible to work out to the reflex level of 5-10 tactical situations, and this is out of several hundred really possible! And if we compare the costs of training pilots and programming "artificial intelligence", then the numbers are simply not comparable, the difference is several orders of magnitude.
  • Eug
    Eug 28 August 2020 06: 50 New
    +3
    As for me, for a long-range interceptor, if a drone is needed, then it is definitely multi-mode - capable and very fast (3-4
    M) go to the interception point, and for a long time loit on the perimeter, and be undemanding to the airfield. According to my logic, it should be definitely larger than the Hunter and carry up to 8 SD of long-range explosives. Well, since in my vision it comes out very expensive, it makes sense to "hang" on it and the functions of the MPA. And the proposed one is not a bad solution, but still life will require a more radical one.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 28 August 2020 08: 51 New
      +2
      Today it is unlikely. Even tomorrow there will be either / or. Either we patrol for a long time like a reconnaissance UAV, or quickly intercept it like a MiG-31. Either we are quietly sitting in the bushes like snipers, or like special forces we take out the door with a sledgehammer, break in and quickly distribute the lullies. For the first, the Hunter is too obese, for the second (based on the available infe) he runs poorly. Unless he is exactly that sledgehammer.
  • svp67
    svp67 28 August 2020 07: 16 New
    0
    To become such an interceptor, it would not hurt to teach the B-70 to refuel in the air, and that means new fuel tankers with a rigid coupling system are needed.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 07: 43 New
      +2
      We don't have enough tankers anyway. And moreover, "tactical" tankers are needed, and not only "strategists" - the Il-78.
      Why don't we, by the way, release a series of tankers based on the Tu-204. Also, in my opinion, it is necessary to widely use OPAZs in the Air Force.
      1. svp67
        svp67 28 August 2020 07: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        Why don't we, by the way, release a series of tankers based on the Tu-204.

        Well, apparently such a machine should be developed on the basis of the MS-21
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 07: 57 New
          0
          And here I don't know ...
          The scout is made on the basis of the Tu-204. However, you are certainly right in terms of park standardization. Moreover, we need not only a tanker in this class, but also a basic patrol aircraft. And of course a scout, instead of the Tu-204R
        2. Wwk7260
          Wwk7260 28 August 2020 08: 15 New
          0
          There are many Tu 204 built, with a small raid, taken out of circulation by the GA. They can be purchased at their residual value and refurbished, even in the rich USA they do not build new cars as refuellers. With Il96 mi, too, do the same.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 11: 51 New
            -1
            Quote: Wwk7260
            There are many Tu 204 built, with a small raid, taken out of circulation by the GA.


            Above are already thinking
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 28 August 2020 11: 44 New
        0
        As a "tactical" tanker, an airplane based on the same Hunter is just asking. Stealth won't hurt. The only question is the amount of fuel delivered. How much you can fit to the maximum.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 28 August 2020 11: 51 New
          +4
          In the USA, the X-47В lost in a similar competition. A flying wing is too expensive a glider. The MQ 25 project is called.

          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 28 August 2020 12: 05 New
            +1
            And why is a flying wing glider more expensive than usual? What is fundamentally more difficult there?
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 28 August 2020 12: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: garri-lin
              And why is a flying wing glider more expensive than usual? What is fundamentally more difficult there?

              Seriously? laughing EVERYTHING is more expensive and more complicated there. Airplanes under this scheme cannot simply fly straight without "steering". It's just that the B2 is the most expensive aircraft in the history of aircraft construction.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 28 August 2020 12: 46 New
                0
                B2 is expensive not because of the shape of the glider, but because of the coating, materials and filling. From a design point of view, a flying wing is simpler than a fuselage scheme. Half of the WWII aircraft could not fly directly without "taxiing". To do this, airplanes and unmanned vehicles have an autopilot that is responsible for the course.
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 28 August 2020 13: 07 New
                  0
                  Oh well. And the F117 with the RQ-170 was purchased in hundreds and the X-47 that took off and landed on the aircraft carrier in 2013 won over the Mq-25 from Boeing, which in 2020 had just started flying. Yeah.
                  There are no mass aircrafts according to the flying wing scheme and are not planned. Their price and performance are many times worse than that of a "normal" scheme. Even the United States with its budgets does not pull them. Development for the same X-47 and Phantom Ray has been discontinued. In the new unmanned programs of the United States, there is no talk of a "flying wing" scheme. Of the current in manned aviation, only B21 is in development without a purchase contract.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 28 August 2020 13: 17 New
                    -1
                    Operational qualities differ from fuselage aircraft. But they also have their advantages. What is the reason for the high cost, I didn’t understand. The argument that the United States rejects them is not an argument. Can you just explain why they are much more expensive than the usual scheme?
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 28 August 2020 14: 09 New
                      0
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The argument that the United States rejects them is not an argument.

                      The price of aircraft and UAVs according to this scheme is an argument and a refusal because of this to purchase them. F117 at $ 111 million (before 1990) and F-15E $ 43 million [$ 1998], B2 over 2 lard dollars, etc.
                      This is the most important argument, because it is confirmed.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Can you just explain why they are much more expensive than the usual scheme?

                      The whole "glider", complex control systems and stability control, avionics for control.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 14: 34 New
                        0
                        The hardest part and the most difficult is the attachment of the planes to the fuselage. The flying wing is missing. The glider is generally simpler. The control systems are identical. Avioniea is also similar. You compare the innovative invisibility of the Goblin and the Spirit with ordinary machines, forgetting that at the time of their creation, the technology was not developed. The coverings were terribly expensive.
                      2. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 14: 55 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Are you comparing innovative
                        The Navy compared the designs of Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman tanker for the aircraft carrier. Where the tested, taken off and landed on an aircraft carrier, refueled in the air, ready for production X-47B lost to the "paper" project from Boeing (which also has Phantom Ray)
                        This indicates the failure of the scheme. Scout and long-range bomber are possible. As a mass, practical aircraft, no.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 15: 17 New
                        0
                        Compare the top view of the two models you listed from different manufacturers. Quite similar contours. Is the reason for preferring one over the other indicated?
                      4. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 15: 59 New
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Compare the top view of the two models you listed from different manufacturers.

                        Do not understand.
                        Northrop Grumman X-47B:

                        Boeing MQ-25 Stingray:
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 16: 43 New
                        0
                        Damn it got into trouble. Under MK 25 meant a slightly different glider. It was necessary to clarify at least in the wiki. Or tofoto that I saw a different angle. And the impression of a flatter fuselage was created. But that's not the point. Wrong and wrong. The crux of the dispute is your statement about the high cost of the airframe of the flying wing scheme. But there is no progress in the dispute.
                      6. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 17: 29 New
                        0
                        The Northrop project went as the main one, no one doubted that it would benefit, so there is confusion.
                        Naturally, no one will write a price calculation for different designs, so you need to focus on such competitions as the MQ-25. Where different machines are compared head-on. But the unpopularity of this scheme in the world as a whole, the absence of mass cars in the United States is a confirmation of my statement. Of all the known US UAV projects according to the flying wing scheme, there is only RQ170 (10-20 pieces), it seems to be being modernized, there are no more projects. All the latest projects (there are dozens if not hundreds of them) follow the "classic" scheme. They and we need massive UAVs and not one-off.
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 17: 45 New
                        0
                        By the way, yes. If my memory serves me correctly, when Iraq intercepted RQ170, the price was announced. If I correctly say 7,5 million for a fancy scout. The wingspan is 20 meters. Not expensive.
                      8. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 17: 49 New
                        0
                        Only when the UAV crashed into Iraqi territory. The MQ-9 costs $ 17 million, 7,5 is an impossible price. The price of RQ170 is hundreds of millions, up to 1 billion. They are super expensive.
                      9. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 17: 53 New
                        0
                        And you can pruff. At the price of 170th.
                      10. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 28 August 2020 18: 41 New
                        0
                        There are no proofs. The Washington Post said it was worth $ 6 million, but that's an impossible price. The project is completely classified, there are no prices in open sources.
                      11. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 28 August 2020 19: 13 New
                        0
                        In fact of the matter. They are trying to make a unique apparatus out of it with their silence. The fact that Iraq was able to plant him says that half of the tales are fairy tales. And 6, 7 or 10 lamas without filling is quite a normal price.
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 28 August 2020 07: 23 New
    +1
    And what exactly is its lack of stealth expressed and how much is it needed?
    If it can stay in the air for more than a day, then its range should be more than 3500 km.
    1. Sergey Averchenkov
      Sergey Averchenkov 28 August 2020 08: 02 New
      +2
      Round nozzle.
      1. Voyager
        Voyager 28 August 2020 09: 28 New
        -1
        Even if it remained round, this does not indicate a lack of stealth. But in the project it is flat.
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 28 August 2020 13: 45 New
        -1
        The radar does not give a damn what nozzle the aircraft has, it is necessary for better heat dissipation, this can affect the detection range using the OLS, which you will not find on f15 / 16/22/35.
  • Wwk7260
    Wwk7260 28 August 2020 08: 24 New
    +1
    He has a chance to become another laughing stock after Armata and Su57.
  • kris_67
    kris_67 28 August 2020 08: 36 New
    +2
    More like a fairy tale or a fantasy.
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 28 August 2020 09: 13 New
    +6
    UAV "Hunter" has a chance to become a long-range interceptor

    Will he be able to catch up with even such an old man as Phantom II? Not? That means it won't be able to become an interceptor.
  • Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 28 August 2020 09: 25 New
    +1
    I read the comments and came to an interesting conclusion, in my opinion: obviously, an interceptor is necessary. The interceptor targets bombers and cruise missiles. Based on the example of recent wars and American punitive actions, we can conclude that cruise missiles will be launched in dozens, maybe a hundred. In order to shoot down such a cloud of missiles, a cloud of interceptors is needed - even a MiG-31, even Okhotnikov ...
    But why not adapt airships for this case !!! It is the stratospheric airships !!!
    The tactics are as follows: along the border we place a group of unmanned AWACS airships, and in conjunction with them - platform airships for launching interceptor missiles.
    The AWACS airship hangs high, sees far away, and most importantly, it can hang for at least six months !!! Slowly gurgles in a given area.
    The AWACS airship gives target designation to a group of missile-carrying airships with long-range interceptor missiles.
    The rocket airship defends itself, AWACS and destroys attacking cruise missiles, bombers and, if lucky, attacking cover fighters. it is essential that such a missile carrier can take a very large number of long-range missiles ...
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 28 August 2020 10: 31 New
    +4
    In general ... not a fighter, but a "flying air defense system" ... Muryzhat this topic has been a long time ago ....: what have not been proposed as candidates (!): Long-range "transports", Tu-95, Tu-160. ... even the future PAK YES and PAK TA! A similar idea, from time to time, makes a trip abroad! But no one has yet chopped off the "Gordian knot" ... that is, they have not taken serious actions in this direction ... (Although, it seems, during WW2 in the USA they did it on the basis of a bomber strategist (either B-17, or B- 29 ...) "heavy air defense fighter" ... If something worthwhile comes out of the "Burevestnik", then later on, you can offer an airborne multifunctional platform, among the options for which the option of a "flying air defense complex" is possible. I perceive the "flying air defense system" on the Hunter S-70 as dubious ...
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 28 August 2020 10: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      But I perceive the idea of ​​making a "flying air defense system" on the Hunter S-70 as dubious

      More like the need to give meaning to a useless super-expensive plane. The same US RQ-170 purchased a dozen pieces, the X-47B project was closed, there are no other UAV projects according to the flying wing scheme that are close to being adopted for service. This scheme loses all competitions. Of the manned new projects, there is only B21, and then you need to wait for the purchase contract.
  • Husit
    Husit 28 August 2020 18: 34 New
    -7
    I liked the article, but the comments, as always, disappeared, etc.
    Well, not a bad development after all .. Why spit on Russian?
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 29 August 2020 08: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Husit
      Well, not a bad development after all .. Why spit on Russian?

      Let's not "spit" and start "shriek", indulging any delirium published by magazines?
      Please explain how from an aircraft with subsonic can you make an effective interceptor with flight speed? And this is not to mention the need to deploy a powerful radar, long-range air combat missiles, address target designation issues, over-the-horizon transmission and exchange of flight and radar information. God forbid, first, just make an attack drone, and then stutter about the interceptor.
      1. Husit
        Husit 29 August 2020 09: 11 New
        -5
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Let's not "spit" and start "shriek", indulging any delirium published by magazines?
        Please explain how an effective interceptor can be made of an aircraft with a subsonic flight speed?

        Well, I shouldn't agree to shout, but to arrange whining is even worse, making fun of everything ...
        This article was clearly not a specialist, so you shouldn't find fault with the words .. There are corresponding forums for this ..
        Go to the archive of the forum, so that way in 2012-2013, and you will be amazed at the difference in what was and what was in the armament of Russia, and indeed ..
        You can kick ..
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 29 August 2020 18: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: Husit
          Well, I shouldn't agree to shout, but to arrange whining is even worse, making fun of everything ...

          Excuse me, where did I "vulgarize and ridicule"? request You were asked specific technical questions, none of which you answered, but fell into patriotic hysteria.
          Quote: Husit
          Go to the archive of the forum, so that way in 2012-2013, and you will be amazed at the difference in what was and what was in the armament of Russia, and indeed ..

          I do not need to "go to the archive of the forum", some things are in front of my eyes, besides, my husband is the author of more than 500 publications only on VO and a number of closed works. So, I have an idea of ​​modern realities in our defense industry. We have made progress in a number of areas, but it is not as great as it is being trumpeted in the media. There are many more failures and shortcomings. So, tie it up with "stinging" .... negative
  • Puper
    Puper driver 28 August 2020 23: 25 New
    0
    Maybe, probably there is a chance ... Tired of it.
  • Old26
    Old26 28 August 2020 23: 42 New
    +1
    Quote: Husit
    I liked the article, but the comments, as always, disappeared, etc.
    Well, not a bad development after all .. Why spit on Russian?

    That is, expressing doubts about the viability of the idea of ​​an interceptor based on the S-70 is already "spitting"? Or any stupidity should be shouted "hurray" and "give"?
    1. Husit
      Husit 29 August 2020 09: 19 New
      -6
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Husit
      I liked the article, but the comments, as always, disappeared, etc.
      Well, not a bad development after all .. Why spit on Russian?

      That is, expressing doubts about the viability of the idea of ​​an interceptor based on the S-70 is already "spitting"? Or any stupidity should be shouted "hurray" and "give"?

      Well, they persuaded me well. hi .This "hunter" with metal and an ordinary cut of the military budget ..
      They are trying to create an interceptor from some kind of maize plant, and even more .... It would be better if the pensions were raised and the roads built normal .. In general, this "bloody regime" I have already got the entire democratic world community .. Where is freedom of speech and tolerance? Army to cut, weapons on metal .. Russia tse Europe.
      Are you happy? Continue in the same spirit or what? wink
  • Old26
    Old26 29 August 2020 11: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: Husit
    Well, they persuaded me well. hi .This "hunter" with metal and an ordinary cut of the military budget ..

    Don't go from one extreme to another. It is quite possible that "Hunter" will occupy its own niche. Which one? Not yet known. Possibly a tactical scout, possibly a tactical bomber. Possibly a scout bomber. But hardly an interceptor. Will it go into series - tests will show

    Quote: Husit
    They are trying to create an interceptor from some kind of maize plant, and even more .... It would be better if the pensions were raised and the roads built normal .. In general, this "bloody regime" I have already got the entire democratic world community .. Where is freedom of speech and tolerance? Army to cut, weapons on metal .. Russia tse Europe.

    Have you spoken? very well. These liberal statements are a common response when there is nothing to say about the case.

    Quote: Husit
    Are you happy? Continue in the same spirit or what? wink

    Keep on shitting further
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 29 August 2020 12: 18 New
    +2
    UAV "Hunter" has a chance to become a long-range interceptor
    Yes, there is. How does the "Shark" become a gas carrier? laughing wassat Who came up with this idea? "Invisible" with all the attached bells and whistles. Form, aerodynamic capabilities, ...... Profiled into the interceptor. fool
    Leave the "Hunter" aside, with your silly ideas.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 30 August 2020 18: 11 New
    0
    Lord, have acquired for once a fashionable new thing, now they will not be able to attach them anywhere. And with a stratospheric tanker, an interceptor of satellites with the possibility of inflicting a precision strike with a yadrenbaton on an infantryman in a trench dug in Afghan caves, are they not yet considering the possibilities? It's just to teach you to be a drummer first, and then build different gliders for different tasks, otherwise they want to load everything in a heap on one horse, and in the sprint they want to win and carry oaks with wagon and be at their best in show jumping.