Some data on the "Grom-E" weapon system for the "Okhotnik" strike UAV were announced

Boris Obnosov, the director of the TRV (Tactical Missile Armament) corporation, shared with the press representatives information about the Grom-E guided KRBV (missile and bomb armament) complex. We are talking about weapons, which was tested by the latest Russian heavy shock drone "Hunter". Some information about this weapon has been announced.

In an interview with the media platform "Military Industrial Courier" told that the Grom-E missile and bomb complex was created on the basis of the Kh-38ME, an air-launched multipurpose guided missile. Such missiles can be used against a wide variety of targets, including armored vehicles, enemy fortifications, and warships. When the X-38 was created, it was noted that such missiles could become the basis of combat weapons aviation new generation. And today this is actually being confirmed.

The Kh-38ME is equipped with several homing heads. It was adopted by the Russian Aerospace Forces in 2012.

According to Boris Obnosov, modularity plays an important role in the creation of the Grom-E guided missile and bomb complex. The director of the TRV noted that it gives the complex "practically unlimited possibilities for the creation of certain modifications."

Boris Obnosov:

And the high performance characteristics allow for an almost circular reach, including the rear hemisphere.

He also added that the complex can be used for various types of targets, including mobile ones.

Earlier it was reported about the testing of the strike UAV "Okhotnik" in various formats, including the interceptor format.

Comments

[Victor_B]

"Thunder-E"

What do you call the ship, so will it float?
Is "E" an export one?

[Insurgent]

Quote: Victor_B

What do you call the ship, so will it float?
Is "E" an export one?

According to the logic adopted in the Soviet and further in the Russian classification system, the letter "E" in the meaning "export option", can only receive a product sold abroad, or ready for export.

In this case (probably) - "Э", this - "Experimental"

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Insurgent

In this case (probably) - "E", this is - "Experimental"

It was also used as a "power-equipped"

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

It was also used as a "power-equipped"

Are you talking about the R-27? I think that in this case the situation is different!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Are you talking about the R-27? I think that in this case the situation is not right

I'm basically talking about the use of "E" in abbreviations.

[Crash]

No, it is export

[dvina71]

Quote: Crasher

No, it is export

Yes..e - export. For export products, TTX are open. Products without the letter Э..ттх are not advertised and cannot be published.

[Vladimir_2U]

Armament unification is a great thing!

And high performance characteristics allow for an almost circular reach, including the rear hemisphere

And this is not in the case of helmet-mounted target designation? Although there are other options, for sure.

[Ka-52]

The Grom-E missile and bomb complex was created on the basis of the Kh-38ME, a multipurpose air-launched guided missile.

In fact, the Kh-59MK2 missile was announced as part of the Thunder complex

[Maki maki]

Quote: Ka-52

In fact, the Kh-59MK2 missile was announced as part of the Thunder complex

This is to confuse partners. What is actually attached there - time will tell.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Ka-52

In fact, the Kh-59MK2 missile was announced as part of the Thunder complex

IProduct 9-A-7759 ("Grom-E" in the export version) is an aircraft bomb with a planning and control module. The complex is offered in three versions, including a modification with a solid propellant propulsion system. Depending on the modification, the launch weight of the complex is estimated at 500-600 kilograms. The maximum missile launch range varies within 65-120 kilometers, the speed is 500-1200 kilometers per hour. The rocket is over 4,1 meters long and over 0,3 meters in diameter.
II.The Thunder family of high-precision ammunition is based on the Kh-38 multipurpose guided missile. "Grom-E1" is a missile, "Grom-E2" is a gliding guided bomb, which has an additional high-explosive fragmentation warhead instead of a rocket engine. The starting mass of both ammunition is 522 kilograms, the Grom-E1 warhead weighs about 250 kilograms, and the Grom-E2's - about 380 kilograms. Guidance system - inertial with satellite trajectory correction

[Ka-52]

The Grom-E1 guided missile and the Grom-E2 planning guided munition developed by the head enterprise of the Tactical Missile Armament Corporation JSC (KTRV) in the prepared KTRV exposition at the MAKS-2015 air show in Zhukovsky. Kh-59MK2 rocket. 23.08.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX.

in the photo, both. Description on the plate

[Nikolaevich I]

“The peculiarity of“ Grom-E ”is ​​the versatility of application: with a salvo launch from one aircraft, it is possible to cover targets located both in the front and in the rear hemispheres. The maximum range of use of the Grom-E ammunition ensures its launch without entering the affected area by air defense targets, "Obnosov noted.
The Tactical Missile Armaments Corporation (KTRV) presented for the first time at the International Aviation and Space Salon (MAKS-2015) the Thunder family of new aviation guided munitions. They include the Grom-E1 guided cruise missile and the Grom-E2 gliding cruise bomb. The Thunder family of precision ammunition is based on the multipurpose guided missile Kh-38.
As announced in August 2019, the tests of Grom-E1 and Grom-E2 have been successfully completed, they are intended to arm combat aircraft of all types, including Su-57 fighter, can be placed on aircraft launchers or ejection devices.
It is also known that promising unmanned aircraft "Okhotnik" and "Altius" Aerospace Forces (VKS) of Russia will receive heavy high-precision gliders ammunition 9-А-7759 "Thunder".

Quote: Ka-52

in the photo, both. Description on the plate

[Ka-52]

In February 2018, during the military tests of the Kh-59MK2 missiles, combat launches of missiles in Syria from the Su-57 carrier aircraft were successfully carried out - this was announced on May 25, 2018 at the board of the Ministry of Defense by the Minister of Defense of Russia S.K. Shoigu.

[Nikolaevich I]

Well, and sho? The Kh-59MK2 has always been referred to as an "independent" product! There was no "talk" about the creation of some "bombs" based on this product! The Kh-59MK2 is a different "class" weapon!

[Ka-52]

Well, and sho?

Well, let's assume that I drew the sign on Max myself in Photoshop

X-59MK2 -weapon of a different "class"

what is it otherwise? Raw smoked sausage class? As for the X-38 it belongs to the URVP. And the 59ka was originally designed for the internal compartments of carriers of the Su-57 type (and for the Hunter it is also suitable if its internal compartment is of the same volume)

[Nikolaevich I]

Gospidya! What happened to you, that you ranked the sausage as a weapon? ... No matter how strategic it is ...! Have you decided to arrange a fasting week for yourself? I sympathize ! Your suffering is familiar to me!

[Ka-52]

No matter how strategic it is.

and I have a bottle of "strategic". Waiting until Friday

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Ka-52

there is a bottle of "strategic"

You are good! You have one ... I have three ... or rather, two in reserve, one opened ...! The other day, my wife, by the most severe sanctions, forced me to take an oath that I would not "part"! Tepericha, I look at the cabinet and "whine"!

[Ka-52]

The other day, the wife forced to take an oath with the most severe sanctions

we need to introduce our counter-sanctions on their sanctions

[Thrifty]

With the notorious "modularity" so far, apart from promises and smut, there is nothing else "at the exit" due to the excessive complexity and unreliability, as well as the high cost of both the project itself, the creation of candy from feces, and the end result in the form of finished products. escapes from this "modularity" because of the problems of integrating modules into a single combat system, the same problems are presented to us as a kind of "benefit", no one knows for whom. ..

[hwostatij]

Earlier it was reported about the testing of the strike UAV "Okhotnik" in various formats, including the interceptor format.

A subsonic interceptor is, of course, something that our VKS really lack

[Sentinel-vs]

Hmm, very contradictory. Does the Hunter have its own powerful radar for interception?

In general, the emphasis in the article on the letters E, that in the UAV index, that in the missile index, make it clear that this is an advertisement.

[Ka-52]

A subsonic interceptor is, of course, something that our VKS really lack

to intercept subsonic CDs, he and the declared 800-1000 km / h will be enough. Yes, and in the opposite direction, he may well act as a carrier of the RDD-VV, especially in the version of the slave Su-57 (which will act as a target designator)

[mark1]

Quote: Ka-52

to intercept subsonic CDs, he and the declared 800-1000 km / h will be enough.

The main thing is to arrive on time at the interception line, but here it may not be enough subsonic speed ... The nature of the interaction of the Su-57 and S-70 is not completely clear - one on cruising supersonic, the other on cruising subsonic, is it rational for them to fly together on long distances?

[Ka-52]

The main thing is to arrive at the interception line on time, but here it may not be enough subsonic speed

yes, I agree. But on the distant lines there are more specialized interceptors - the MiG-31.

one at cruising supersonic, the other at cruising subsonic

I think combat tactics will be developed using this bundle. The Su-57 as a command vehicle can go behind the UAV, covering them with interference and giving out target designation. And the UAVs themselves can serve as platforms for long-range missiles

[mark1]

Quote: Ka-52

Su-57 as a command vehicle can go behind the UAV, covering them with interference and giving target designation.

If the Su-57 is a source of interference, then you can forget about invisibility, so it turns out (taking into account different speed characteristics) that in terms of the aggregate flight characteristics for interaction with the Su-57 S-70 is not very suitable (at least in my sofa opinion), but here is the Su30 / Su34 (subject to the modernization of the radar) just.

[Ka-52]

If the Su-57 is a source of interference, then you can forget about invisibility,

oh well, stupidity. Sukhoi can go at a distance of 30 km behind the UAV, in the inaccessible zone of the enemy radar. Therefore, the enemy will not be able to conduct direction finding to the source of interference

but the Su30 / Su34 (subject to the modernization of the radar) is just.

the main problem is in the IMS. And if the Su-34 has it at a more or less acceptable level, then with the Su-30 it is not so.
pc in vain they will bypass you - you are not bad asking questions for the sofa

[mark1]

Quote: Ka-52

oh well, stupidity. Sukhoi can go at a distance of 30 km behind the UAV, in the inaccessible zone of the enemy radar.

This is more like stupidity. you are tied to a specific airborne radar and not to a complex of means (including AWACS).

[Ka-52]

This is more like stupidity. you are tied to a specific radar and not to a set of means

what complex?

(including AWACS)

do you think that the Americans will throw the Hawkai at the distance of defeat? All right, the Grummans have found the jamming source. And then? To launch the AIM120 with jamming guidance, the fighters will have to approach a distance of <120 km, that is, such a distance where they themselves are guaranteed to be hit by missiles from UAVs.

[mark1]

Quote: Ka-52

Do you think that the Americans will throw the Hawkai at the distance of defeat?

What does Hawkeye have to do with it? AWACS is now like mud.

Quote: Ka-52

To launch the AIM120 with jamming guidance, the fighters will have to approach a distance of <120 km, that is, such a distance where they themselves are guaranteed to be hit by missiles from UAVs.

Well, first of all, the "Patriot" does not suit you or another ground-based air defense system of the DB.
Secondly, probably still not 120 km but about 160-180.
Third, what is the exclusive role of the Su-57 (which glows brightly due to interference and is forced to "crawl" at subsonic speed) compared to the Su-34 / Su-30 with modernized avionics?

[Ka-52]

What does Hawkeye have to do with it? AWACS is now like mud.

yes, grandmothers at the entrance - the best AWACS instead of the word "dirt" you write in detail and then a finger in the sky and not that can be given

Well, first of all, the "Patriot" does not suit you or another ground-based air defense system of the DB.

how nice - we discussed air combat and rrrraaaz - "Patriot" appears how, is it carried by air? You somehow inform me about such sharp turns of your story. I'm sick, old, I can't keep up with your "my thoughts, my horses"

compared to the Su-34 / Su-30 with modernized avionics?

Firstly, I wrote above that the architecture of the ISU of the Su-57 is more perfect and allows you to integrate control and target designation systems for the S-70 into it. In the Su-30, it is older.
secondly, the use of ACS for the Su-30 and so on and so forth exists already now and there is no point in building a garden with them
thirdly, the bundle involves the use as slaves unmanned vehicles... This is the idea itself.

[mark1]

Yes, I did not discuss air combat with you. For that matter, we discussed the effectiveness of the Su-57 S-70 bundle, and then your "horses" carried you into the woods and chaparygs. And judging by the abundance of emoticons, you perfectly understand this.

[Ka-52]

Yes, I did not discuss air combat with you. For that matter, we discussed the effectiveness of the Su-57 S-70 bundle

mddde? .... and the interceptor option for what we discussed with you? Intercepting Patriot missiles or what? do not lose the thread of the conversation

[mark1]

We discussed the interceptor option in terms of intercepting subsonic missile launchers and the effectiveness of the Su-57 and S-70 bundles. (specifically, the need for the Su-57) then carried you into the area of ​​jamming with the Su-57, and this is no longer a topic of interception, or are you all the same?

[Ka-52]

and this is no longer a topic of interception or is everything the same for you?

and interception of enemy aircraft (from strategists with cover to attacks by enemy tactical aircraft of our military facilities) is not an interception for you? what is your own terminology overlooked? And then I was taught differently in VVAUL

[mark1]

Quote: Ka-52

And then I was taught differently in VVAUL

Well, judging by the way you recycle with me to teach, then you were taught ... and then on Pushkin.

[Ka-52]

Well, judging by the way you recycle with me to teach, then you were taught ... and then on Pushkin.

rewrite ??? I describe something that either exists or is technically possible. And you are collecting some nonsense. Either the missiles hit 300 km, the air defense system flies, then the interception does not intercept you have a dispute for the sake of a dispute, in the name of some incomprehensible idea of ​​yours

[OgnennyiKotik]

S-70 is another image project. He can be a scout and a secretive striker. Everything else is fantasy. In the west, similar devices were produced and tested back in the zero years. Nothing went into the series, all contests were lost. In addition to a couple of dozen RQ-170s, he is a pure reconnaissance officer, and then he is not in the army, but in the service of the US intelligence community.
Loyal Wingman's concept is the most viable at the moment. In addition to the USA and Australia, the British entered the race. The other day we decided on a contractor.

[Ka-52]

dada, in your magic mattress everything is real, and we have it, fantasies I'll go cry with grief

[Shraik]

Yes ... Australia and Britain are great military powers. I don't even know which one is more stately.

[alexmach]

If the Su-57 is a source of interference, then you can forget about invisibility

Here I support, the radar and interference should turn on the drone first.

[Crash]

Quote: Ka-52

I think combat tactics will be developed using this bundle.

Alternatively, the Hunter may already be at the rendezvous point, doing some work. If necessary, connects at the pace of the waltz Su-57

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: mark1

The nature of the interaction between the Su-57 and the S-70 is not completely clear - one at cruising supersonic, the other at cruising subsonic, is it rational for them to fly long distances together?

Your doubts - "have the right to be"! They are clear to me ...

[hwostatij]

to intercept subsonic cruise missiles and the declared 800-1000 km / h is enough

And how do you imagine such an interception?

Yes, and in the opposite direction, he may well act as a carrier of the RDD-VV, especially in the version of the slave Su-57 (which will act as a target designator)

Have you already tested this drone with RVV-BD? Moreover, with the use of external target designation for them from the SU-57. Are you sure that such a configuration is generally possible, or is it just your fantasies?

[Ka-52]

And how do you imagine such an interception?

I imagine him in shorts and a saber, on a war horse (from an anecdote). what a strange question?

Have you already tested this drone with RVV-BD?

and what is the problem with such weapons? The R-77 and R-33 will fit into the inner compartment.

Moreover, with the use of external target designation for them from the SU-57

and what is the problem of transmitting target designation from the Su-57 radar? in our time, ACS is already 40 years old as it has ceased to be a wonder

Are you sure that such a configuration is generally possible, or is it just your fantasies?

Is the earth flat or is it spinning? Your question from the same opera

[Hexenmeister]

... The R-77 and R-33 will fit into the internal compartment ... and what's the problem with transmitting target designation from the Su-57 radar? in our time, ACS is already 40 years since it has ceased to be a wonder

Target designation is the information that is inserted into the rocket before launch, and there are no problems here. And then it becomes necessary to carry out radio correction, and this is not like in a 10-watt SB radio per pin, this is with all the foolishness, that is, power, through a good antenna and in the direction of the launched rocket. Who will do it? I have not seen anything worthy in the nose of "Hunter" in the pictures. The Su-57 itself can do so with a missile launched from the Hunter, but somehow it seems clumsy ... What is the concept here? And while the "Hunter" has nothing in its nose, there will be fortune-telling on coffee grounds ...

[Ka-52]

Target designation is the information that is inserted into the rocket before launch.

the joke went well and how, for example, do you think target designation is carried out from the on-board radar to the missile coordinator of the missile with the PGSN? By means of rituals and dances with tambourines? The radio signal of the leader's onboard radar is reflected from the target and is captured by the missile coordinator. And the rocket makes no difference who highlights the target - the carrier itself or its leader. If the signal signature is specified in the processing algorithm.

And while "Hunter" has nothing in his nose, there will be fortune-telling on coffee grounds ...

no comments ... hahaha

[Hexenmeister]

First, figure out for yourself what is coming from !!! If we are talking about missiles with V-V PGSN, then before launch, information on primary target designation is sent to the head through the communication line. After the launch, the rocket goes on the inertial system, and information about the change in the parameters of the target's movement is transmitted to the rocket through radio correction signals, for which the rocket has its own weakly directional antenna in the rear, and already at the final guidance section, the seeker itself is turned on, which receives the reflected from the target backlight signal! For V-V missiles with active radar seeker, in terms of primary target designation and radio correction, everything is the same, only accordingly at the final stage the seeker is switched to active mode.

If the signal signature is specified in the processing algorithm

Themselves understood what they said, the signature understander ???

[Ka-52]

Well, why do I need these extracts from Wikipedia? These are just a little more words about the same thing that I wrote above. And how does this refute the argument that the Su-57 can carry out target designation and target illumination with its own radar? And what did you want to say? Throw verbiage at me?

[Hexenmeister]

And how does this refute the argument that the Su-57 can carry out target designation and target illumination with its own radar?

It's very simple, the Su-57 radar does not provide target illumination because it does not have V-V missiles with semi-active radar homing heads in its arsenal. And on the rest of the issues of the guidance of V-V missiles, it is useless to discuss with you, a complete lack of knowledge, but an understanding of the signatures ...

[Ka-52]

It's very simple, the Su-57 radar does not provide target illumination because it does not have V-V missiles with semi-active radar homing heads in its arsenal.

Dada, specialist, and missiles with AGSN have all lost their flight route correction?

And on the rest of the issues of the guidance of V-V missiles, it is useless to discuss with you, a complete lack of knowledge

hehe, he took my words he repeated simply by diluting them with a bunch of his own water and now he writes about "not knowing" come on, expert, write escho

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Ka-52

Specialist, but missiles with AGSN have all lost their flight route correction?

You were even told directly how it was carried out.

[Soho]

So how? Any missile, even with pargs, even with args, has an adjustment in the passive phase of flight. What's not clear?

[The eye of the crying]

Everything was clear to me before. I also understand that there must be an antenna on the nose of the aircraft to transmit data to the rocket. Is there something you do not understand?

[Soho]

Should there be an antenna? On the nose? It may be something on your nose. For example, pimples or boils. And on the plane, all the antennas are hidden under the cowl, the sofa connoisseur.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Soho

It may be something on your nose. For example, pimples or boils.

You know how to give convincing arguments, you know how.

[Soho]

What is not provided for target illumination is your finger to the sky. Do you at least know the possibilities of H036, which is only planned for production and installation on existing machines? Did the chief designer whisper to you that there is no lighting in Belka? Or balablabla?

[Hexenmeister]

To begin with, you will decide what you consider "highlight"! The term "target illumination" has always been understood, if we consider the radar, to keep the radar beam on the object in order to receive the reflected signal from this object on outside a receiver, such as a semi-active radar homing receiver. Well let’s your blah blah on this matter! For what purpose is it necessary to keep the beam on the object in Н026 when working on an air target ??? Or they came up with an idiotic and "non-standard" term "backlight", and bustle it in all places ...

[Soho]

I ask again - do you have the technical parameters of the H036 Belka radar? Do not play around like a lady with low social responsibility. You are asked a question - first answer, and then ask your question. Or are you a Tel Aviv resident with such a Jewish manner of dialogue?

[Soho]

Hey, expert! What are you thinking? Have you stumped the question? As if the answer suggests 2 options: yes or no Or do the people of Tikhomirov not pick up the phone? that's it and it ...

[Hexenmeister]

Do you have them? All that crap that you are carrying, I, for example, have not heard from people who understand this system.

[Soho]

That is, there will be no answer to my question?
And such a pretentious start and such a liquid finish
If there is no technical data on Belka, then why such a loud statement:

illumination of targets is not provided for the Su-57 radar

and then a long slip from the topic, when I realized that I had fluffed my tongue in vain
How easily sofa experts are brought to clean water - you just have to ask them about something substantive

[Hexenmeister]

And why should I answer stupid questions if there is no answer to my question from two opponents at once, what is "illumination" in the usual sense of the meaning of the Russian verb "highlight", in relation to the radar "Belka"? And this question was asked even before your entry into the debate. Can't you give a normal definition to your own terms ??? Well, sit quietly and evenly, and even laughed heartily at your hints about NIIP !!! Do you really work there? If so, this is a tragedy!

[Soho]

Heh) of course you can't answer, because you can't. Because the technical data on Belka is not publicly available. And your statement about what is in its characteristics and what is not is pure chatter. I got into this dispute with just one question and you merged on it. And now, with some stupid and dull booze, trying to transfer the arrows to me)))
And yes, the word "highlight" was first heard in your comment, not mine. Do you want me to screen your comment and poke your nose into it? Or disassembled your badherd step by step? Nothing complicated. If you want to finally break through the bottom - go ahead, write))

[Hexenmeister]

And yes, the word "highlight" was first heard in your comment, not mine. Do you want me to screen your comment and poke your nose into it?

Odd !!! Come on !!! Just take a look at this first:

Ka-52 (Andrey) January 27, 2021 12:29
And how does this refute the argument that the Su-57 with its radar can exercise target designation and backlight goals?
Hexenmeister (Alexey) January 27, 2021 12:45 PM
It's very simple, the Su-57 radar does not provide target illumination

So what is backlighting ??? Since you, together with the previous speaker, claim that it exists ???
And by the way, my question has not been answered: "So you work at NIIP?"

[Soho]

Hexenmeister
It's very simple, the Su-57 radar does not provide for target illumination because there are no V-V missiles in its arsenal

Who wrote it, balabolkin?

[Hexenmeister]

Well, I wrote, and as an answer to someone else's question, and substantiated my answer, but two other commentators, including you, could not provide anything against my statement, just repeat like a prayer: "Who told you that? There is a backlight, there is backlight ... "

[Soho]

I didn't discuss "highlighting" at all. I just wrote a question for your comment. What does it matter to me what you discussed there. I specifically asked in my comment: where did the fireballs come from about the 57th radar? In response, I heard some antics. It is a fact? Fact. And about whether it can be called a backlight or not - it's a storm in a glass of water. Ask any pilot - he will answer. And I think you won't sprinkle saliva in his face with cries of "you are not correct." Otherwise, he will give you a Kumpol ZSH and give you a kick in the ass. That's all

[Hexenmeister]

I specifically asked in my comment: where did the fireballs come from about the 57th radar?

And to read my answer completely, to which there was your comment, there was something for scrap:

It's very simple, the Su-57 radar does not provide target illumination because it does not have V-V missiles with semi-active radar homing heads in its arsenal.

If the pilot starts talking the same garbage as you do, you need him to do the kumpol himself. And it's enough to scare me, either by the Chief Designers, or by calls from the Tikhomirovites, or by some kind of pilots, at a certain stage I taught them myself

[Soho]

Frighten? Yes, my question scared you so much that you have been hanging on my ears for a week and a half, just not to admit directly and honestly: "Yes, they say, I apologize, blurted out delirium without thinking." But admitting your mistake is sick of your ego. Much easier now to fill up your obosrams with a ton of verbiage

[Hexenmeister]

I do not refuse my words, and I am no longer interested in conducting a conversation with you, there is something to say in essence, speak, and roll your assessments into a tube and shove them in a purse.

[Soho]

It is clear that it is not interesting. I didn’t wait for an answer, and you don’t have one. But it's easier to make an offense and say "fi"

[alexmach]

Here, they will most likely "play" from constant watch into the air with weapons.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Hwostatij

A subsonic interceptor is, of course, something that our VKS really lack

To deal with fellow drones, which are almost all subsonic,

[Adimius38]

One simple question? why is the engine nozzle round? Ever since the 80s, if not earlier, we found out that a flat nozzle reduces the visibility of an aircraft. The Americans followed this path with their F117, B-2, and the F-22 does not have a standard round nozzle. The Chinese, for example, making their drone an analogue of the Hunter, also adopt the best world experience and make it with a flat nozzle, but obviously we have some kind of incomprehensible path ... However, as in everything

[Dodikson]

for a flat nozzle, the UVT works only vertically.
ours therefore left the usual nozzles on the PAK FA, because they consider maneuverability more useful than stealth, especially before the release of ROFAR, after which all stealth ceases to be stealth and the fu-35 becomes not a wunderwolf. and with a flying iron that even F-16 loses

[Ka-52]

that the flat nozzle reduces the aircraft's signature. The Americans followed this path with their The F117, B-2, and the F-22 do not have a standard round nozzle.

and the round nozzle on the F-35 is not easy to see?

that the flat nozzle reduces the aircraft's signature

only in ZPS. But it has its drawbacks - weight and power drop.

but obviously we have some kind of incomprehensible path ... However, as in everything

Once again, I advise you to choose lenses and still look at the photo of the F-35

[Zaurbek]

A single-engine UHT device will not have all angles ... and on Hunter's models the nozzle is flat without the UHT and without the afterburner.

[Ka-52]

A single-engine UVT device will not have all angles

the presence of a twin-engine installation is not important for UHT. But two differentially deflected nozzles allow some maneuvers to be made more vigorously.

and on Hunter's models the nozzle is flat, without shock wave and afterburner.

never seen a S-70 with a flat nozzle. And about the FCG, how did you find its absence by model?

[Zaurbek]

It is flat ... and sunk into the body and, obviously, motionless. Read the analysis of the Hunter on Paralay ..... there from sweep to nozzle ...

[Ka-52]

It is flat ... and sunk into the body and, obviously, motionless.

Who? If the nozzle, then I do not see anything prejudicial in this. UAV and do not need to be super-maneuverable (that's my opinion). Therefore, he does not need OBT. And to screen the outflowing hot jet of gases, the nozzle (decrease in IR visibility) is covered with heat shields (like in the F-22)

[Zaurbek]

I'm talking about Fast and Furious

[Ka-52]

The afterburner is located in 2/3 of the engine, between the turbocharger and the nozzle. She is already inside the hull of any fighter. It's not entirely clear how you can drown in the case what is already there?

[Zaurbek]

2x mode nozzle for fighters. The hunter now has it too .... he is not on the model. Why afterburner with a subsonic nozzle? And with a flying wing with sweep design for subsonics?

[Ka-52]

2x mode nozzle for fighters.

I do not know what a 2-mode nozzle is. Are you talking about constructively based on the Laval nozzle type?

[Zaurbek]

One of the configurations. When the supersonic expands, the -sound contracts. And if there is an OBT, then this whole structure also deviates. Hence the dimensions and weight of the structure.

[Ka-52]

One of the configurations. When the supersonic expands, the -sound contracts. And if there is an OBT, then this whole structure also deviates. Hence the dimensions and weight of the structure.

you have completely confused me. First there was a conversation about the afterburner. Now the conversation turns out all the same concerns the nozzle. And judging by your description, you have a Laval nozzle, not a flat nozzle.
The weight of a flat nozzle increases not due to "deflection", but due to the fact that an increase in structural strength is required as a result of the impact on the walls of large values ​​of bending loads

[Zaurbek]

Yes. for example, nozzle Al41 or 31

[Ka-52]

Yes. for example, nozzle Al41 or 31

both to the classic Laval nozzles, i.e. supersonic converging-diverging nozzles with UHT. The Hunter is also equipped with an AL-31F

[Zaurbek]

Yes, but there is no nozzle on the model shown. And the fuselage with the wing is not optimized for supersonic sound. The turbojet engine could be supplied to speed up the tests. No rework. We must wait for the next options.
From competitors, no one has a supersonic nozzle.

[Ka-52]

And with the scheme of a flying wing with a sweep designed for subsonic

for a flying wing, the problem of flying is balancing. And the transition to SZ is hampered only by a high degree of parasitic resistance with such a wing geometry

[Zaurbek]

I agree. This specific shape of the glider is needed for specific purposes. Supersonic and maneuverability are not included in these goals.

[alexmach]

With the F-35 and Su-57 everything is clear, they are fighters after all, but with the flying wing, which was primarily planned for a stealth striker, everything is not so obvious. Does he need OBT at all and is that maneuverability achievable for a flying wing?

[lucul]

One simple question? why is the engine nozzle round? Ever since the 80s, if not earlier, we found out that a flat nozzle reduces the visibility of an aircraft.

At what distance will a round nozzle give a stealth plane compared to a flat nozzle? )))
And compare the range of its missiles.

[Adimius38]

Those who think the Chinese are fools are deeply mistaken. The Chinese make a similar flat-nozzle aircraft. So there is still a meaning in it. If anyone finds that there was a whole film dedicated to F117, what methods were used to reduce its visibility.