A dispute arose on the network about the advisability of super-maneuverability for the strike UAV "Okhotnik"

The American press released material that is dedicated to the development of the Russian unmanned aviation... It is noted that in just a few years Russia has managed to go through the technological path that the United States has traveled for decades. In particular, it is said that Russia managed to create a high-speed heavy attack drone from scratch, which is positioned not only as an autonomous combat unit, but also as a UAV capable of acting as a slave against a fifth generation fighter.

American journalists from 19FortyFive write that the Russian Okhotnik UAV is "one of the most modern drones impact type in the world. At the same time, American reporters note precisely the fact that the Russian Okhotnik is distinguished by its ability to act as a wingman for the Su-57 fighter.

From material in the American media:

The Russian strike drone is capable of accelerating to a speed of 1000 km / h with a mass of 20 tons. It is heavier than individual fighters, but this does not prevent it from developing high speed.

American authors note the following fact: a bunch of Su-57 and shock drone "Hunter" allows the latter to strike at targets at distances of up to 6 thousand km with a rocket and bomb load of up to 2 tons.

American experts, commenting on Russian aviation technologies, note:

The Russians have always managed to create super-maneuverable aviation.

Based on this, the comments of US experts indicate that now Russia will have to implement proven technologies for maneuverability on drones.

In this regard, the question arises: is super-maneuverability really necessary for the Hunter heavy attack drone? On this occasion, a dispute has entered the network. One of the parties to the dispute says that the purpose of creating the "Hunter" was originally associated with the destruction of ground assets and infrastructure. However, later, statements began to appear that the Okhotnik UAV could also be used as an interceptor. If we talk specifically about the interceptor variant, then it will be difficult to do without increased maneuverability, because otherwise the enemy's chances of destroying the Russian drone will increase.

Comments

[BARKAS]

Super-maneuverability may not be needed, but when interacting with the SU-57, the drone should probably match the characteristics of the maneuverable leader.

[Alexander 3]

after all, otherwise, the enemy's chances of destroying the Russian drone will increase.

[Alex_Rarog]

This is at least to match, but better to exceed. Since there is no pilot there and the overloads are not as terrible for him as for a living person

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: BARKAS

Super-maneuverability may not be needed, but when interacting with the SU-57, the drone should probably match the characteristics of the maneuverable leader.

The “flying wing” scheme has great maneuverability limitations, it is several times worse than the “normal” one. There is no large part of the controls and stabilization, high lift. Talk about "super maneuverability" is simply ridiculous, there is a problem to fly straight and just maneuver.
Therefore, the S-70 as a wingman does not fit the fighter. Can be used as a bomber or scout. The Hunter is almost the same size as the F-117 and can be used like it.

[spirit]

Here it is! Sort of like one of the leading specialists in aerodynamics under the f117 program wanted to burn at the stake those who came up with such an airplane shape
Flying wing and maneuverability are the opposite.

[El Chuvachino]

As a slave, the rate is made on Thunder, apparently. There was also the Okhotnik-U project, but it is not clear what happened to it.

[OgnennyiKotik]

It's not clear about the rate. So far, Thunder is an initiative development. The dry lobby is very strong, they can strangle, like Migovites.
While this is all PR during the plague.

[Alex777]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Talk about "super maneuverability" is simply ridiculous, there is a problem to fly straight and just maneuver.

And stories about the development of a flat nozzle hint at the further development of the Hunter's stealth, and not super-maneuverability.

[nobody75]

there is a problem to fly straight

Was in the 80s of the last century.

it is many times worse than that of a "normal"

Excuse me, "normal" is what? There are many of them ... Or are you talking about the classic scheme?
All modern super-maneuverable Russian fighters were created and are created statically unstable.
Sincerely

[SKVichyakow]

Do you think he should fly like a log? Straightforward?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: SKVichyakow

Do you think he should fly like a log? Straightforward?

And he can’t do otherwise!
Have you ever thought about what you can and what you cannot?
Outrun the shark in the water!
And think someday about why the human body will never succeed in this ...
This is just an example for you about the aerodynamic configuration (aero and godro are often similar) ...

[loki565]

Super-maneuverability may not be needed, but when interacting with the SU-57, the drone should probably match the characteristics of the maneuverable leader.

Most likely, the UAV will not change as a slave and maneuver on a par with the aircraft, but will be of the type of an inconspicuous launcher - It will not be equipped with a modern expensive radar. For example, the UAV flies in front of the aircraft, the aircraft illuminates the target and the UAV fires, even if the aircraft is destroyed by return fire (fired missiles and forgot). Or you can also use the UAV as a bait that imitates a stealth aircraft, when the enemy attacks it, it will reveal itself.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: loki565

Super-maneuverability may not be needed, but when interacting with the SU-57, the drone should probably match the characteristics of the maneuverable leader.

Most likely, the UAV will not change as a slave and maneuver on a par with the aircraft, but will be of the type of an inconspicuous launcher - It will not be equipped with a modern expensive radar. For example, the UAV flies in front of the aircraft, the aircraft illuminates the target and the UAV fires, even if the aircraft is destroyed by return fire (fired missiles and forgot). Or you can also use the UAV as a bait that imitates a stealth aircraft, when the enemy attacks it, it will reveal itself.

The plane of the plan you are describing with weapons costs under $ 150 million.
The pilot increases its cost by only 7-10% ...
Are you ready to lose just as a false target, an extra almost two hundred million rubles?
If you can make just false targets such as MALD, worth 2 million rubles?

[loki565]

The plane of the plan you are describing with weapons costs under $ 150 million.
The pilot increases its cost by only 7-10% ...
Are you ready to lose just as a false target, an extra almost two hundred million rubles?
If you can make just false targets such as MALD, worth 2 million rubles?

What does the pilot have to do with it? I said without a radar, a minimum of systems, one engine, the price will be less than half of the plane, but it will remain stealthy and the ability to launch missiles, suddenly for the enemy and at a closer distance

[SovAr238A]

Quote: loki565

The plane of the plan you are describing with weapons costs under $ 150 million.
The pilot increases its cost by only 7-10% ...
Are you ready to lose just as a false target, an extra almost two hundred million rubles?
If you can make just false targets such as MALD, worth 2 million rubles?

What does the pilot have to do with it? I said without a radar, a minimum of systems, one engine, the price will be less than half of the plane, but it will remain stealthy and the ability to launch missiles, suddenly for the enemy and at a closer distance

Su-30 costs under $ 100 million.
Our engine costs 5 million, the radar without AFAR is less than 500 thousand dollars.
What is the minimum of systems, taking into account the mandatory addition of a remote anti-jamming control system.
And if the host gets shot down?
What do you think all the "followers" will disappear into oblivion?
Don't you need to manage them?
Shouldn't they be taken out of action?
They do not need real-time satellite communication, which is not even in our manned aircraft now, due to the complete absence of the very satellite communication constellation for working in real time with a super-thick anti-jamming two-way communication channel?
Or has not a single uryakalka ever thought about this?
And then it turns out for Uranus-9 in Syria: "This is a complete fiasco, bro!" ...
Because they don't even think about such a designer, and I know about it from Ryazan.

So count.
Especially considering the size of the C-70 ...
The components used in it.


He's not cheap nifiga. It's huge.
It has a military, not a civilian engine (this will immediately multiply the price threefold), its consumption is twice as high as that of a civilian ...
Why am I talking about civilians, but because the enemies use civilian, commercial engines on their UAVs.
And the resource is several times higher, and the consumption is much less, and the maintenance is ten times cheaper.
You can actually train operators relatively cheaply.

Learn to see at the root!
Kozma Prutkov wrote it for the smart

[Incvizitor]

In the future, he may collide with other enemy drones, and then good flight characteristics are unlikely to be superfluous.

[Errr]

Quote: BARKAS

Super-maneuverability may not be needed, but when interacting with the SU-57, the drone should probably match the characteristics of the maneuverable leader.

The super-maneuverability of the S-70 will be ensured with any type of nozzle exclusively in the vertical plane, but it is very necessary for it to perform an anti-missile maneuver.
The flying wing has an extremely dirty directional stability. Even without super-maneuverability, it is not easy to get rid of yawing in flight.

[Editor]

I wonder how they will interact at completely different flight speeds?

[lucul]

In this regard, the question arises: is super-maneuverability really necessary for the Hunter heavy attack drone?

It is not needed if it is not "seen" by the radars, and if the radars are seen, then the chosen stealth concept is not correct.

[KCA]

Radars can see absolutely any aircraft, the issue is in the distance, perspective and characteristics of the radar itself

[kpd]

The question is not even whether the "stealth" radars can be seen, but from what distance to such a device the missile's homing head is confidently captured.

[Editor]

during the seven-day Arab war, one Soviet plane made several circles over Tel Aviv, despite the fact that it was seen by all radars, various types of interceptor aircraft were raised, but not a single missile fired at this aircraft reached its target. And the plane was NOT maneuverable at all. Isn't that the answer to all agility questions?

[Castro Ruiz]

This was a brand new SU-23 with a big ceiling.
And yet, yes. The maneuverability is very weak.

[Hypertension]

Quote: lucul

then the chosen stealth concept is not correct

Before the Su-57, they used to say that. Shaking the wreckage of the downed F-117 iron. Now it is no longer accepted to talk about stealth with disdain. Camouflage on the equipment is also, you know, not 100% protection against detection. Why, even Armata - and the one with stealth elements.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: lucul

In this regard, the question arises: is super-maneuverability really necessary for the Hunter heavy attack drone?

It is not needed if it is not "seen" by the radars, and if the radars are seen, then the chosen stealth concept is not correct.

Radars are always seen, it all depends on the signal strength and frequency range.
As well as the operating modes of the radar, such as LPI ...

[Nafanya from the sofa]

Online there was a dispute

Nobody knows anything. But to start an argument and put each other "-" and blame all mortal sins, almost to the point of pedophilia (I remind you - we are talking about the performance characteristics of the aircraft, which are still secret), this is "our everything"
I wonder what kind of brain, brain or spinal, is needed to control the fingers for typing on the keyboard?

[Sergey3]

In the tailbone which ...

[Barberry25]

the point is super-maneuverability in the absence of cannon armament, although the presence of a trainable AI will be more important here

[KCA]

So, can't you use rockets? The video was how the SU-57 shoots out of the built-in compartment during vertical flight of the rocket

[Barberry25]

before such a meeting, according to the logic of things, the Hunter will have to empty his BC

[abc_alex]

Quote: Barberry25

the point is super-maneuverability in the absence of cannon armament, although the presence of a trainable AI will be more important here

Supermaneuverability - the ability of an aircraft to maintain its direction of movement by changing its position in the air. Ours started talking about this when it was necessary to adapt the radar of fighters looking forward in a narrow sector to attack ground targets. Tilt the aircraft with its nose down, but at the same time continue to move in a straight line, without descending. That the radar provides search and recognition of targets. Therefore, the cannon has nothing to do with it. Missile weapons also need target search and detection.

[nobody75]

sense in super-maneuverability in the absence of cannon armament

In the angular velocity of the armament axis.
Sincerely

[Barberry25]

the UAV has a very limited ammo, which will be used in the first place

[nobody75]

Excuse me, but how will this affect the turnaround time on the goal?
Sincerely

[Barberry25]

so that in the event of a battle, they will be found not 30 km away from themselves, but much farther, and in this case, the bk of the slave UAV will first be consumed, and then the pilot will spend his missiles ... so leave a minus for yourself

[nobody75]

That is, the Pilot himself will be substituted, irradiating the target with a radar, to launch missiles from an UAV? You have an interesting tactic ...
Sincerely

[Barberry25]

for those who do not understand, in case of detection of enemy targets, the first launches will be from the UAV i.e. First, the BC of the slave UAV will be consumed, and then the pilot of the main BC will also use MD missiles, for launching which, in theory, supermaneuverability will be required, just like using a cannon ... Or do you propose to suspend MD missiles in the UAV?

[nobody75]

You are a genius of tactics! I - I always thought that super-maneuverability helps to avoid VV missiles! And here's how ... Ksati, can a "flying wing" be "super-maneuverable" in general?
Sincerely

[Barberry25]

I just want to see how you will dodge 4 swings of an oncoming missile?

[nobody75]

Have you heard about the unsuccessful use of the F-14 during the first Gulf War?
Sincerely

[Bez 310]

There is no combat UAV, there is a platform for testing technologies.
"Wingman for the Su-57" - this is for amateurs, but independently flew alongside.
Much of what we know about Hunter is advertising and misinformation.

[mark1]

Are you spiteful? You risk deservedly getting

Quote: Nafanya from the couch

accusation of all deadly sins, almost to the point of pedophilia

[Bez 310]

Quote: mark1

Are you spiteful?

I really appreciate the situation.

[El Chuvachino]

You are unfit for this activity.

[Bez 310]

Quote: El Chuvachino

You are unfit

Please inform the administration that you are not evaluating a comment, but a commentator.
"It's bad to be like this!"

[El Chuvachino]

He whined and ran to the elders

[Bez 310]

Quote: El Chuvachino

He whined and ran to the elders

No, I didn't run anywhere.
Read the comment carefully.
I see that you are bored, lonely, and there is no one to talk to. I sympathize...

[El Chuvachino]

Quote: Bez 310

I see that you are bored, lonely, and there is no one to talk to. I sympathize...

You have forgotten that you are unfit for real judgment. Find yourself something easier to whine.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: El Chuvachino

Quote: Bez 310

I see that you are bored, lonely, and there is no one to talk to. I sympathize...

You have forgotten that you are unfit for real judgment. Find yourself something easier to whine.

Suddenly, a real combat pilot, a couch fighter aka a corrupt bot, assessed about his "professional suitability" ...

[El Chuvachino]

Oh, again the delusional got out? I kind of made it clear that I won't even read your rubbish, waste time on empty If you listen to you here, every one is almost an astronaut, but in fact it was yap and drooling devices. Go where you were going

[SovAr238A]

Quote: El Chuvachino

Oh, again the delusional got out? I kind of made it clear that I won't even read your rubbish, waste time on empty If you listen to you here, every one is almost an astronaut, but in fact it was yap and drooling devices. Go where you were going

ABOUT...
A genius just appeared among us ...
Something I have never seen signs of reason in your texts ...
And where was I going?
Probably definitely not to the toilet ...
After all, I am not on my way with you!

[I am not a robot]

so the common man is not supposed to know anymore, this is military technology

[Volkof]

Everything is worse ... This is a "bone" for "gray inhabitants" to demonstrate what is not yet ... The most interesting thing is that bones, as such, do not exist yet! There are no simple, extremely necessary things, but they waste time and money on useless "crap" ...

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Bez 310

There is no combat UAV, there is a platform for testing technologies.
"Wingman for the Su-57" - this is for amateurs, but independently flew alongside.
Much of what we know about Hunter is advertising and misinformation.

As I understand it, stupid uryakalka were marked with minuses under your really relevant message.

[Bez 310]

Quote: SovAr238A

As I understand it, stupid uryakalka

Probably...

[Roma 1977]

What is the interceptor from the subsonic aircraft? Long loitering in anticipation of an order to destroy ground targets and afterburner to the launch point at a high-speed air target are incompatible tasks. KB "MiG" can easily explain why.

[Avior]

If we talk specifically about the interceptor version, then it will be difficult to do without increased maneuverability.

The interceptor does not need super-maneuverability, high speed is much more important.
The most famous modern interceptor, the MiG-31, does not have much maneuverability. The maximum overload of the MiG-31 is 5G.
It is even higher for the Su-25 attack aircraft.
Haarrier, for example, has a maximum operating overload: + 7,5 g.
The interceptor does not need maneuverability - he was brought to the target - or he went out on the radar, launched the missiles, and left. Interceptors do not engage in mobile combat.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Avior

If we talk specifically about the interceptor version, then it will be difficult to do without increased maneuverability.

The interceptor does not need super-maneuverability, high speed is much more important.
The most famous modern interceptor, the MiG-31, does not have much maneuverability. The maximum overload of the MiG-31 is 5G.
It is even higher for the Su-25 attack aircraft.
Haarrier, for example, has a maximum operating overload: + 7,5 g.
The interceptor does not need maneuverability - he was brought to the target - or he went out on the radar, launched the missiles, and left. Interceptors do not engage in mobile combat.

On the one hand,
Your message looks like the same rake that the Americans fell on in the late 60s from missile euphoria and deprived phantoms as well as some other fighters and guns.
And also having come up with tactics of purely missile combat at medium range.
As a result, several dozen aircraft were lost in Vietnam.
The first year of fighting at the Phantoms was without shooting down the enemy, but only with losses.
There were "100500" examples of both training and real combat, over the years there was a mid-range disruption and the entrance to the BVB.
This is the topic of the concept of purely missile combat at long and medium ranges.
And the same MIG-31, which could not shoot down a target at a long or medium distance - 100% corpse.
He has no maneuverable U-turn, nothing.
He has no chance at BVB.
Launched a rocket and skedaddle.
I could not run away - will be shot down.
Russia has a minus plane, minus 2 pilots, minus billions for education, training, fuel.
The MiG-31 is the most useless aircraft in our Air Force.
Can only fight against B-52, B-1B, B-2.
All...
Notice, on the news, it is being lifted into the air, only against bombers and scouts. In all cases, when enemy IS approaching our borders, Sushki rises. 30 and 35 ...


On the other hand.
The pace of development of electronics and algorithms that has occurred over the past 15 years, namely since 2005, has been prohibitive.
Several orders of magnitude better electronics and especially algorithms ...
And if 30 years ago the Sidewinder rocket flew away for a thermal trap in 80% of cases, now it doesn't give a damn about it.
A missile of the AMRAAM type, received a seeker, which is useless to jam, it has the ability to analyze the most powerful signal of aviation electronic warfare and aim at it, switching its seeker to the PRLR mode.
It is a pity that this happens only among those who develop their electronic industry and their programmers.
On the reincarnation of still Soviet developments, based on the technical specification of the 80s, this is unrealistic to implement.

[Nikolaevich I]

In this regard, the question arises: is super-maneuverability really necessary for the Hunter heavy attack drone? The purpose of the "Hunter" was originally associated with the destruction of ground vehicles and infrastructure. But the UAV "Okhotnik" can also be used as an interceptor. If we talk specifically about the interceptor version, then it will be difficult to do without increased maneuverability, because otherwise the enemy's chances of destroying the Russian drone will increase.
Yoksel-moxel! Or maybe, after all, remember the unsuccessful "epic" with the "universalization" of weapons in the 30s of the last century? It seems that now the military wants "everything at once" again!

[bovi]

Vladimir, it was the Americans who expressed their understanding of the purpose, not the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, Hunter looks like this ... now. But if you look more closely, it is clear that KMK is trying to assess the possibilities on the existing platform. "Follower" is the accumulation of practical experience both in engineering terms and in the discussion / understanding of the results. The person is so constructed that it is difficult to discuss the alleged performance characteristics that go beyond the usual practice. In this sense, I would expect the transfer of experience to a new platform when and if from the C70 it turns out to squeeze out something imaginably tempting.
In this sense, they did not want "everything", but right away - yes, they are gradually expanding their understanding of "what you can and should want."

[Basarev]

Super maneuverability is not needed. If only because one of the unconscious purposes of the drone is to be a shield, to take shells upon itself, at the cost of its own life to save people. In addition, for strikes against ground targets, super-maneuverability is not needed, but a carrying capacity that goes against it is needed - so that, like the F-15, freely and beautifully haul more than 10 tons. However, super-maneuverability is not needed in aerial combat either. Now it is not Vietnam, and this time the dogfight has definitely disappeared forever. And what is really needed is stealth, powerful avionics, powerful and compact engines and, I repeat, great payload ... That is, all those moments in which Russia is weak. After all, if we discard super-maneuverability, it turns out that Russia has not even crawled to the American level of the times of Vietnam again. The phantom can easily lift more than seven tons - a level unattainable even now for Russian fighters with a comparable electronic filling.

[I am not a robot]

there is a photo of the Su-27 with 32 bombs of 250 kg each flies freely and beautifully, this is more of a phantom
powerful engine al-41
breo irbis and squirrel
and there is a photo f-15 with a 10 ton load

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Basarev

Super maneuverability is not needed. If only because one of the unconscious purposes of the drone is to be a shield, to take shells upon itself, at the cost of its own life to save people. In addition, for strikes against ground targets, super-maneuverability is not needed, but a carrying capacity that goes against it is needed - so that, like the F-15, freely and beautifully haul more than 10 tons. However, super-maneuverability is not needed in aerial combat either. Now it is not Vietnam, and this time the dogfight has definitely disappeared forever. And what is really needed is stealth, powerful avionics, powerful and compact engines and, I repeat, great payload ... That is, all those moments in which Russia is weak. After all, if we discard super-maneuverability, it turns out that Russia has not even crawled to the American level of the times of Vietnam again. The phantom can easily lift more than seven tons - a level unattainable even now for Russian fighters with a comparable electronic filling.

Before Vietnam, the Americans thought that there would never be Dogfight again.
The missiles will defeat everyone.
Their story taught differently
What do you need to know?
Maybe more knowledge?

[Vissarion Golubov]

First of all, the SU-57 itself is needed in sufficient quantities as a tool for gaining air supremacy. IAPs needed
57th, as needed as air. Now every mongrel in NATO in the near future will have an F-35. How will they be butting with him?
previous Sukhiye is not yet clear ...

[voyaka uh]

Totally agree.
For the Russian Air Force to become defensive, you need, at least,
100 serial Su-57.
To support missile air defense with active interceptions.

[aszzz888]

voyaka uh (Alexey)
Today, 11: 23
NEW

-1
Totally agree.
For the Russian Air Force to become defensive, you need, at least,
100 serial Su-57.

Why not 120, 150, 190? Or so, just to blurt out! Or did you personally get the exact number from the General Staff of the Russian Federation?

[SovAr238A]

Because 75 cars in 10 years is nothing.
How are you going to share 76 cars across the country?
76 vehicles are not enough even to counter Japanese fighter aircraft.
And then there is NATO, from Murmansk, through Crimea, to Derbent ...

What are you going to stretch?
A candle in the General Staff of Russia?
So it is already clear that our people are not there!
Not Russian, not Russian ...

[Vissarion Golubov]

Because this is 2 IAP. It was hard to think of it.

[abc_alex]

Quote: voyaka uh

To support missile air defense with active interceptions.

And what, the Su-35 will not be able to intercept the B-52? Why do we need aircraft of the Su-57 level for the needs of air defense?

[Editor]

so MIG-31 will intercept faster, more accurately and more guaranteed

[SovAr238A]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: voyaka uh

To support missile air defense with active interceptions.

And what, the Su-35 will not be able to intercept the B-52? Why do we need aircraft of the Su-57 level for the needs of air defense?

Will the B-52 fly alone?
In addition to the American B-52, do the Americans have 500 fighters?
The Japanese don't have a couple of hundred fighters?
NATO doesn't have 500 fighters?

[abc_alex]

Quote: SovAr238A

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: voyaka uh

To support missile air defense with active interceptions.

And what, the Su-35 will not be able to intercept the B-52? Why do we need aircraft of the Su-57 level for the needs of air defense?

Will the B-52 fly alone?
In addition to the American B-52, do the Americans have 500 fighters?
The Japanese don't have a couple of hundred fighters?
NATO doesn't have 500 fighters?

There is. But to solve the problem of "500 fighters from all sides" 100 Su-57 will not be enough. To solve problems of this level, there is the Strategic Missile Forces. Neither NATO, nor Japan, nor the United States will lift a single fighter into the air if they are firmly convinced that in response they will receive a thermonuclear missile strike on their territory. Japan, you know, not much is needed for complete delight on the part of the Chinese and Koreans.
The same goes for European countries. For example, the Strategic Missile Forces of the Russian Federation can literally turn Belgium into a radioactive desert. And if the Belgians are sure that Russia will deliver a nuclear strike at them, they will lie down under the tracks of NATO tanks and commit sabotage at NATO bases, so that they do not fly.
And the United States, too, is unlikely to risk flushing all the achievements of the post-war period down the toilet.
And in the case of an expansion of the arsenal of hypersonic weapons, a counter strike by Russia could literally fly out towards the waves of NATO aviation.

There is no point in shooting towards the bullets. We must kill the machine gunner. Better yet, the commander ...

[SovAr238A]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: SovAr238A

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: voyaka uh

To support missile air defense with active interceptions.

And what, the Su-35 will not be able to intercept the B-52? Why do we need aircraft of the Su-57 level for the needs of air defense?

Will the B-52 fly alone?
In addition to the American B-52, do the Americans have 500 fighters?
The Japanese don't have a couple of hundred fighters?
NATO doesn't have 500 fighters?

There is. But to solve the problem of "500 fighters from all sides" 100 Su-57 will not be enough. To solve problems of this level, there is the Strategic Missile Forces. Neither NATO, nor Japan, nor the United States will lift a single fighter into the air if they are firmly convinced that in response they will receive a thermonuclear missile strike on their territory. Japan, you know, not much is needed for complete delight on the part of the Chinese and Koreans.
The same goes for European countries. For example, the Strategic Missile Forces of the Russian Federation can literally turn Belgium into a radioactive desert. And if the Belgians are sure that Russia will deliver a nuclear strike at them, they will lie down under the tracks of NATO tanks and commit sabotage at NATO bases, so that they do not fly.
And the United States, too, is unlikely to risk flushing all the achievements of the post-war period down the toilet.
And in the case of an expansion of the arsenal of hypersonic weapons, a counter strike by Russia could literally fly out towards the waves of NATO aviation.

There is no point in shooting towards the bullets. We must kill the machine gunner. Better yet, the commander ...

Stop trumping the nuclear club. Especially if you don't know the documents.
See the doctrine of application in Russia.
Russia can use it in response to an attack on it or its allies with the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or in the event of aggression with conventional weapons, if "the very existence of the state is threatened."
The destruction of the naval base in Kaliningrad, the seizure of the Kuril Islands, the strike on Khmeimim, carried out by tactical weapons, due to the escalation of the confrontation, does not in any way fit into the criteria of the doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, you are not mistaken.
For a nuclear strike by one side will entail a retaliatory strike from the other side.
But then there will be neither Russia nor America. And maybe there will be no Europe either. Your children and mine will not be. There will be no grandchildren.
And the living will envy the dead.
Like in the movies.
Do not forget about this when swinging a nuclear club.
Conventional means need to be developed, and not rely on ephemeral nuclear weapons.

[Vissarion Golubov]

It was at the expense of the nuclear club that we were not “Oyugoslavlled” in the 90s, when they had an army of the first Chechen model (eternal memory to the fallen). Now it became clear why Marshal Sergeev mostly gave the crumbs that the Defense Ministry had to the Strategic Missile Forces. And to warn about the possibility of using, if the whole pack collapses, it is simply necessary! This is much more honest than, we do not have it, but if necessary, we will apply ... denying the existence of nuclear weapons, no obligations are taken at all. Something like that. Now on the SU-57. The presence of 2IAP will allow the start of full-fledged military operation. The training of flight personnel, engineering and technical, to develop combat use, to close a couple of areas, and there, God willing, we will increase the number ...

[abc_alex]

And in your opinion, this is yours:

American B-52 Do Americans have 500 fighters? The Japanese don't have a couple of hundred fighters? NATO doesn't have 500 fighters?

это не

Quote: SovAr238A

... in the case of aggression with conventional weapons, if the very existence of the state is threatened.

Like many "liberal analysts" you are engaged in one-sided games. When the USA, NATO and Japan with 1000+ planes are against Russia, and Russia is alone with a Mosin rifle. In your opinion, 1000+ aircraft on two fronts, why will they attack Russia? To improve the well-being of Russians? That's what it is threat to the existence of the state.

Quote: SovAr238A

But then there will be neither Russia nor America. And maybe there will be no Europe either. Your children and mine will not be. There will be no grandchildren.

I know. But this only applies to the children and grandchildren of the US, the Japanese, the Germans, the British and you, I don't know where you are writing from. And only this, and nothing else, is holding back the US and NATO from aggression. Not humanitarian considerations, not philanthropy or green world cravings. Only animal fear at the instinct level. Only a clear understanding that the Russians will destroy everyone, if anything. And not later, but immediately.
Do you really think that Russia is capable of creating a potential for conventional weapons comparable to the combined potential of the United States, NATO and Japan? In the United States, the defense budget is an order of magnitude larger than the Russian one. Plus the military potentials of Japan and Europe. Are you seriously?

[I am not a robot]

"Destruction of naval base in Kaliningrad, seizure of the Kuril Islands" - how these words fit into "in the event of aggression with conventional weapons, if" the very existence of the state is threatened "

[voyaka uh]

"So what, the Su-35 will not be able to intercept the B-52?" ///
----
Su-35s, of course, can easily intercept B-52s.
But the air defense will be destroyed by numerous NATO F-35s before
B-52s will fly inland.
And here the Su-35 are rather weak ... they will be deceived. We need Su-57.

[Vissarion Golubov]

Alternatively: make mixed shelves. One SU-57 squadron, two SU-35S. Maybe it will pay off.

[voyaka uh]

This is not a bad option.

[abc_alex]

Quote: voyaka uh

"So what, the Su-35 will not be able to intercept the B-52?" ///
----
Su-35s, of course, can easily intercept B-52s.
But the air defense will be destroyed by numerous NATO F-35s before
B-52s will fly inland.
And here the Su-35 are rather weak ... they will be deceived. We need Su-57.

A warrior, I am sure, the Russian Federation is simply physically incapable of creating an air force based on Sukhoi aircraft, capable of withstanding the combined potential of the US and NATO air forces. For us, this is tantamount to being killed against the wall. Even on the basis of the Su-35, especially on the basis of the Su-57. We can't. The US military budget for 2021 will amount to $ 740 billion, plus almost $ 160 billion more for the military budget of the three NATO countries (Germany, France, Britain). The military budget of Russia 61,7.
AS???

[voyaka uh]

If the Russian Federation does not start mass production of the Su-57, it will hopelessly lag behind in combat aviation.
Therefore, it is not so important who has what budget.
It is more important to stay on the cutting edge of technology.
It is the intersection of materials science, electronics and software.
Technology is changing rapidly. And they will change even faster.

Alice in Wonderland: "why are we running but staying where we are?" , -
"to stay in place you must run."
Alice: "and to move forward?" -
"you have to run twice as fast."

Alas, such a life has gone ...

[abc_alex]

It's true. But we have thousands of kilometers of land borders that don't need extra-class cars. And the passion for mass production of the Su-57 could lead to a shortage of the fleet.
Therefore, as you may have noticed, I am an apologist for the MiG-M2 machines. The production of the Su-57 will keep our aviation industry in the top league, but the RF Air Force needs a "workhorse", a vehicle for the conditional "Tajik-Afghan border". Sukhoi's machines cannot be like that. Moreover, the Su-57.

[Aliyev Ilham]

The fact that it can accelerate to 1000 km / h does not mean its super-maneuverability.
What kind of "Maneuvers" can we talk about at all, with a mono-wing scheme?
There, in the princess, almost everything is controlled by the autopilot. Taking control of the "mono-wing", especially an attempt to maneuver, is an early loss of control and an accident, and artificial intelligence in such a scheme is precisely for the purpose of preventing the plane from making unnecessary maneuvers.
Even American mono-wing aircraft have not yet reached the level of artificial intelligence to maneuver like a conventional fighter. And here you see, the Russian Hunter turned out to be super-maneuverable.

But this - "It is noted that in just a few years Russia has managed to go through the technological path that the United States has traveled for decades." Full hand-face ..

[DMi]

Someone did not notice that this is a retelling of a translated article from the American press. If you want to roll your eyes at the "stupid" quilted jackets, then turn your hand and face towards American journalists and American citizens who discussed this article.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The Hunter UAV has no super-maneuvering.

There is speed, stealth.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The Hunter UAV has no super-maneuvering.

There is speed, stealth.

What is the speed?
Which have....

What is stealth?
Which have...

Those. there is nothing.
Subsonic speed and no stealth ...

It is now

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

You even look at the Hunter's engine and the glider shape for a start, otherwise they wrote some nonsense.

[Aliyev Ilham]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The Hunter UAV has no super-maneuvering.

There is speed, stealth.

I agree with everything except "low visibility".
Any aircraft with a missile with IR seeker from a distance of 40-60 km will drop the Hunter, with his powerful glowing engine.
Another thing is that the pilot will not suffer, because he is a "drone", that's the whole plus.)

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Aliyev Ilham

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The Hunter UAV has no super-maneuvering.

There is speed, stealth.

I agree with everything except "low visibility".
Any aircraft with a missile with IR seeker from a distance of 40-60 km will drop the Hunter, with his powerful glowing engine.
Another thing is that the pilot will not suffer, because he is a "drone", that's the whole plus.)

This is a very expensive drone.
Its price, judging by its size and equipment, is comparable to the price of the SU-30, well, it is cheaper by $ 25 million, if we consider the cost of the pilots for $ 15 million ...

The game is not worth the candle.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The "Hunter" engine will not glow, there will be a flat nozzle and probably something else will be done to cool the heat trace of the engine.

What flies now and is called "Hunter" is a prototype, the production version will be different from it.

[A. Privalov]

Colleagues, what disputes can there be, and even among the Americans, about a military product, which in fact does not exist yet?
UAV "Okhotnik" released in one copy, and this is not even a real UAV "Hunter", but only his prototype... None of its performance characteristics are known, there is essentially nothing to talk about.
Let the respected design bureau, known for its serious developments, calmly bring its work to the end. The Chkalov aircraft plant is also a well-known company. We will patiently wait until the real embodiment in metal and the release of at least the first episode. Then we will discuss when at least something significant appears. Otherwise, it turns out not a discussion, but an unnecessary spiteful abuse with mutual accusations and breaking virtual copies.
We here at VO have already witnessed hundreds of empty welds on the Su-57. There is zero sense from such "discussions", and the atmosphere on the site is not healthy.
Hope for understanding.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: A. Privalov

Colleagues, what disputes can there be, and even among the Americans, about a military product, which in fact does not exist yet?

Be condescending, let your colleagues frolic.
Where else can they feel so special, smart, and perceptive, other than in the comments?

[A. Privalov]

Quote: Sydor Amenpospestovich

Quote: A. Privalov

Colleagues, what disputes can there be, and even among the Americans, about a military product, which in fact does not exist yet?

Be condescending, let your colleagues frolic.
Where else can they feel so special, smart, and perceptive, other than in the comments?

I don’t mind, but you don’t need to dog. The people are already accusing each other of such things that they will not get it on their heads.

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: A. Privalov

I don’t mind, but you don’t need to dog. The people are already accusing each other of such things that they will not get it on their heads.

Don't need a dog? Yes, this is the essence of all forums to the last one! Without running into each other, there will be only a couple of dozen people who are really interested, understand and with good manners.
99,999% here for the sake of self-affirmation, that is to say, srach, je vous demans pardon pour mon francais.

[A. Privalov]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

je vous demans pardon pour mon francais.

No need to apologize. Your French is flawless.

[riwas]

The "hunter" needs maximum secrecy to perform his functions. That is why it was the first in Russia to use a flat nozzle, unlike the Su-57.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: riwas

The "hunter" needs maximum secrecy to perform his functions. That is why it was the first in Russia to use a flat nozzle, unlike the Su-57.

He does not have a flat nozzle and will not have it for another 5 years.
For this will be a complete overhaul, consider development from scratch, a new engine, and a new aircraft ...

Why was it necessary to make the S-70, initially in the form that it is now?
Wrecking and cutting.
Unambiguously under execution.
At least once someone in the modern military-industrial complex of Russia needs to be punished exponentially.
Half KB is desirable.
For they have already sat down on the "saw" needle, and the one who is on the needle will never get off it ..

[DMi]

What is the super-maneuverability of the "flying wing" scheme ????
It is physically impossible. American F117 and B2 in a straight line then flew and still fly with difficulty. The hunter will be exactly the same.

[Avior]

F-117 has a permissible overload of 6 units
The Su-25 is similar.

[DMi]

You read how the f-117 was called by the pilots who flew it.
And overloads can be obtained without super-maneuverability. The crash of TU 144 in France is an example of this. Can see a photo on the network and the conclusion of the commission.

[Avior]

There is a big difference between super-maneuverability - and “flying with difficulty in a straight line”.
There was no maneuverability, and the overload characteristics were similar to other attack aircraft and tactical bombers, which he is.

the F-117A has very decent horizontal maneuverability due to the low specific wing loading, and the roll rate is also good. The F-117A pilots in interviews unanimously say that the horizontal maneuverability and available overload of the F-117A are comparable to such aircraft as the F-4, T-38 and A-7. Vertical maneuverability and acceleration characteristics, of course, are far from "fighter", but also quite normal for an aircraft with such a thrust-to-weight ratio. For example, the rate of climb is 180 m / s - for the same Su-24 it is more than two times less. Or take the takeoff and landing characteristics, compare the F-117A with the same MiG-27. The takeoff speed of the F-117A is 306 km / h and that of the MiG-27 is 315 km / h. Landing speeds are 278 and 260 km / h, respectively. The takeoff distance of the F-117A is slightly longer than that of the MiG - due to the greater mass and lower thrust of the SU. The landing distance of the F-117A is shorter (albeit not much).

[DMi]

The use of stealth technology hit hard the maneuverability of the machine. The F-117 had a fairly good thrust-to-weight ratio, but its maneuverability and speed left much to be desired. Restrictions were introduced into the aircraft control system, which simply blocked the execution of some maneuvers.

The F-117 attack aircraft is very unstable in yaw and pitch, therefore a special program has been introduced into its control system, which prevents the pilot from making dangerous maneuvers.

American pilots (especially those who flew on it) gave the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk a completely different name: Wobblin 'Goblin, which literally can be translated as "lame goblin". This unflattering nickname clearly shows the attitude of pilots towards the performance of the F-117 Nighthawk.

Any "flying wing" will have the same problems. It's just physics and aerodynamics.

[Avior]

The F-117, in contrast to the classic flying wing, has a vertical tail.
The f-117 has an EDSU with fourfold redundancy, and the fact that overload restrictions have been introduced into it is natural.
In your quotation widespread in Runet, the last statement is a pure invention of the author of this quotation, long ago invented and replicated by someone, and not confirmed by anything. Videos have long appeared that confirm the aircraft's maneuverability, which is normal for tactical bombers.

[DMi]

Wow, he knows how to turn right and left) a normal plane. Almost ready air fighter)
About yaw on roll and pitch, this is all America's haters came up with)
Another would be to understand the meaning of these bickering. The declared theme was a certain "super-maneuverability" of the Hunter. Which cannot be, in principle, by virtue of its design. What is there to argue about in general?
By the way, can f117 go into a dive? How is a normal tactical SU25 ?? Or will he spin like a pilot in this video? Well you compared F117 and Su 25 above. Let's see and decide which summer is a normal tactical, and which is still a lame goblin)

[Avior]

Show me in the video below where he scours for roll and pitch.
And why did you bring the video of the Su-25?
We discussed the F-117 tactical bomber, or rather, your phrase

American F117 and B2 in a straight line then flew and still fly with difficulty.

Since it turned out that this is pure fiction, which is confirmed by the video, I see no point in further dispute

[DMi]

F-117 has a permissible overload of 6 units
Su-25 has the same

Your memory is short, I see. Well, I remind you of the content of your message, which is less than a day old. And I return the question. Why did you compare f117 and SU 25 ?? Not me, you got into this topic.
Maybe you seriously think that the coincidence of permissible overloads for two different machines also makes their maneuvering ability the same? Well, here I am showing you. No, it doesn't. They fly in completely different ways.

In yaw on roll and pitch, the pilot senses, presumably, and compensates for them in the process of piloting. You won't see anything from the outside.

[Avior]

my memory is completely in order and about your statement that f117-de and flies badly in a straight line, I remember very well, as well as the fact that you never give evidence of the stated, except for the usual murzilka from the Runet.

Why did you compare f117 and SU 25?

I have a comparison with different planes in different parameters

They fly in completely different ways.

they fly the same way, it's just that the Su-25 used aerobatic teams for demonstration performances, not a single combat pilot flies like that and will not fly, since the plane is not intended for this at all and is simply dangerous with such maneuvering

It does not have devices warning about entering critical modes, and the pilot himself must very carefully monitor the observance of the permitted flight parameters. The margin of error was very small, which greatly complicated flights in dense combat formations, since a small margin in the angle of attack and low throttle response manifested itself simultaneously with an almost instantaneous drop in speed when the gas was thrown off.

At low speeds when the engine speed was dropped, the aircraft lacked the efficiency of the elevator to maintain operational angles of attack. Some figures, as it turned out, are difficult to perform on the Su-25, and not only technically, but also purely psychologically. On the loop, the speed at the top point is about 300 km / h, and in this case the car simply falls on its back. It takes a lot of skill from the pilot not to fall into an inverted tailspin. It is very difficult to perform a roll and a slide with a coup as part of a group, although from the ground, the aerobatics of the "Heavenly Hussars" always looked light and beautiful. Piloting the Su-25 required a lot of skill from the pilot.

And on the F-117 there have never been such demonstrative aerobatic teams, and ordinary combat pilots flew on them, while the aircraft shows maneuverability normal for its class.

[DMi]

In the garden of elderberry, in Kiev, uncle ...
Group aerobatics, aerobatic teams ... what is this all about? In the video, there is only one SU25, and this plane is not one of the celestial hussars. It is clear that the pilot is not a beginner, but he is from a regular combat unit. And it is clear that in battle he will not fly like that. Does the lieutenant show aerobatics on F117? I think that he is also an experienced pilot. And all that he was able to squeeze out of his car was turning to the right and left.) That's it) SU 25 can show more, so it flies better.

The margin of error was very small, which greatly complicated flights in dense combat formations,

And f117 can fly in dense battle formations. I think not. I have never seen such pictures anywhere. Maybe because it is, in principle, dangerous for him? Even without any maneuvers?)

It does not have devices warning about entering critical modes, and the pilot himself must very carefully monitor the observance of the permitted flight parameters.

So maybe there are no devices because the SU 25 allows you to fly without constant automatic control, when, like f117, it uses restrictions and control over critical modes constantly. Maybe this is the surest sign that f117 is a dumb log? And with difficulty it flies even in a straight line).

[Avior]

In the garden of elderberry, in Kiev, uncle ...

this is about your comments just
started with the fact that the f-117 flies badly even in a straight line, saw the video that this is not so and are trying to move down to the Su-25.

It is clear that the pilot is not a beginner, but he is from a regular combat unit.

it is clear that the restrictions that ensure flight safety are spelled out in the Su-25's flight instructions and manuals, which allows a specially trained aerobatic pilot to violate them, and which a regular combatant will never do, otherwise it will quickly snatch from the authorities for violations or the plane will crash , while the F-117 has it built into the software.
Even so, the F-117 shows good flight capabilities for its class, which is clearly seen in the video.

[DMi]

The topic about SU 25 was raised by you, not me. Don't lie. I just continued it.
In your video, the F117 fly in a straight line and sometimes show "sharp" turns. He cannot show anything else, even with a trained pilot and the task of working for the camera. And this is exactly what demonstrates that he flies badly).
So what about the "tight formation" for F117 ??? Are there vidos showing that he can at least fly smoothly in a group of two planes? Or is it that the programs do not allow him?

[Avior]

The topic about SU 25 was raised by you, not me.

No need to lie.

sometimes depicts "sharp" turns.

he makes such turns, not portrays.
Which clearly refutes your claim

Are there vidos showing that he can at least fly smoothly in a group of two planes? Or is it that the programs do not allow him?

he does not need this, aerobatics do it for demonstration performances at air shows, they have never formed aerobatic teams from F-117.

[DMi]

Not necessary. It's clear. All planes fly in links. And F117 is not needed. Maybe it still can't, because it's just dangerous!)

[venik]

"....However, later statements began to appear that the Okhotnik UAV could also be used as an interceptor. .... "
=======
Actually, an interceptor with a speed of 1000 km / h is somehow "not very" ..... Although in conjunction with the Su-57 - in air combat - it does not seem superfluous!
PS As for the "super maneuverability" - that "tailless", and even without vertical tail - a priori can not be "super maneuverable"! Yes, he does not need it! Its main task: strikes against ground targets (including as the "long arm" of the Su-57!).

[Ros 56]

To be an interceptor, the Hunter does not have enough speed, but to dodge an attack, super-maneuverability is the thing.

[A. Privalov]

Quote: Ros 56

To be an interceptor, the Hunter does not have enough speed, but to dodge an attack, super-maneuverability is the thing.

Yesterday, it was still possible to somehow dodge the old air-to-air missiles with a heat head. Today, from fire-and-forget with pattern recognition, there is simply no chance.

[rotmistr60]

Nafanya from the couch (Nafanya is the expert from the couch)
I wonder what kind of brain, brain or spinal, is needed to control the fingers for typing on the keyboard?

Is it a rhetorical question? Since you yourself are sitting at the keyboard and can listen to yourself to answer it.
I try not to argue about our UAV. I do not know his real performance characteristics and real capabilities. Therefore, what they write about in the media so far has to be believed exclusively in words.

[George Miloslavsky]

This is the eternal question of Westerners. There was a dilemma at the beginning of the jet era, whether the aircraft needed guns, they removed it, it turned out to be needed. Yes, they do not always use them, but for 50 years this question has not been raised. Likewise, with the maneuverability of the beam, let it be what will not be when needed.

[svoroponov]

There are no perfect rockets. If you find (the radar of your aircraft detected a missile coming at you or you received a command from the ground) that a missile has been fired at you, then, depending on the distance to it, both anti-missile maneuvers and other methods of evading it are performed using electronic suppression to disrupt its targeting head to capture your side, plus shooting traps or small simulator missiles with more active thermal and ultraviolet signatures.
This drone, if it can intercept targets, then only drones and helicopters. In addition, during the conduct of hostilities, enemy aircraft will not always be present or not constantly cover their troops. In addition, a powerful air defense system may be present in the area. To work in such conditions, it is necessary to suppress at least the radar of this group. There are other objects in the deep rear that need to be destroyed, but additional reconnaissance is needed.
In this case, additional reconnaissance and destruction in one sortie.
So for one-off operations of destruction, opening the enemy's air defense in the area, reconnaissance, and simply distracting from the main strike groups, he is needed. In addition, if necessary, its entire load can be an electronic warfare system, which, when flying near the sides with a person, covers and disguises them,
In addition, a link of such drones as part of a group, if necessary, simply step forward and distract and take missiles in the group on themselves, protecting the aircraft with the pilots and giving time to clarify the situation: who, what and how much and from where.

[evgen1221]

If we with AI have advanced to the level of the Empire from Star Wars, then super-maneuverability is useful, and if we do not reach the software on amerskih UAVs, then we need to impose on early detection and a long arm is necessary. Is there a sense in super-maneuver for the masses of UAVs? Well, if there is only one of them for the entire ZVO, well then, what will he do alone there ???

[AML]

Quote: evgen1221

and if we do not reach the software on amersky UAVs

And what is the advancement of ai potential opponents? Get to the point? Ii is not needed. Shoot? Ii is not needed. Return to base and again not needed. Let me tell you a big secret. Ii does not exist at all at the moment.

[DO]

The S-70 "Hunter" is the most unobtrusive (designed to the detriment of maneuverability and speed characteristics) tailless "flying wing" stealth. The main purpose of such aircraft is to use stealth, approach at subsonic levels to ground air defense targets or naval groupings, and deliver a missile strike.
The very concept of this aircraft suggests that it is intended for hypothetical conflicts with a high-tech enemy. And in such a conflict:
1) In order to work on the ground, you need to overcome the enemy's air defense. Stealth during a through flight of the enemy's air defense engagement zone will no longer work. Required or record speed and altitude, or high speed + maneuverability (up to the ultimate strength of the glider), with a rounding of the terrain. The S-70 does not have any of this and should not be, by definition.
2) The interceptor requires a speed no less than that of existing fighters, which a stealth should not have.
3) For long-range aerial combat, stealth has the advantage of stealth. However, its limited maneuverability reduces its chances of automatically evading an enemy missile.
It is too early to consider close air combat of a drone, because the AI ​​has not yet matured for it. But when it ripens, it will require maneuverability unattainable for a tailless.
4) The concept of "faithful wingman", firstly, implies the presence of stable radio communication channels between aircraft. And this practically means the need to find a bundle over a well-controlled territory where the enemy's electronic warfare means are absent or are immediately destroyed. Secondly, when passing the enemy air defense zone, the associated group of aircraft must have similar high characteristics of speed and maneuverability. Otherwise, in the case of a combination of the Su-57 with the S-70, the S-70 will not only be an easy target itself, but will also drag the Su-57 associated with it to the next world.
Hence the conclusions.
The leader-follower combination is effective over a well-controlled area. It is highly undesirable for a manned lead aircraft to be in the enemy's air defense zone.
If there is information about the targets, the operator of the leading aircraft gives target designation to the slave drones, and switches them to the missile attack mode, autonomous in case of loss of the radio communication channel. The leading aircraft itself, if possible, avoids the missile strike zone, performing in the background the functions of insurance against the breakthrough of enemy aircraft.

[agond]

The limitation of maneuverability is usually due to the limitation on overloads, which in turn are related to the strength of the glider, for example, a wing of high aspect ratio, but in the Hunter there is no wing of small aspect ratio and there is no pilot in it, which means it can be maneuverable

[DO]

Maneuverability is needed mainly in the following cases: missile evasion, anti-aircraft maneuver, close air combat.
Stealth "flying wing" design should lose, for example, the Su-27 or MiG-29 in close maneuvering combat.
It is difficult to say whether the maneuverability of stealth is sufficient for anti-aircraft maneuver. However, in the MiG-29, for example, this maneuver is expectedly more effective.
The evasion of the flying wing from the rocket is up and down, maybe. Left-right, it is difficult to say, because here he first needs to spend time in order to completely lie on his side, and only then dodge with an overload.

[Zaurbek]

It seems to me that it is enough to appreciate the design ... weight and thrust and understand its cruising speed, thrust-to-weight ratio and maneuverability. This is a direct, modern analogue of F117, adjusted for armaments and communications, well, maybe they will also develop the topic of a tanker. This is logical and necessary.

[AML]

Quote: riwas

The "hunter" needs maximum secrecy to perform his functions. That is why it was the first in Russia to use a flat nozzle, unlike the Su-57.

Uh-huh, maybe it was applied because of the wing geometry? And you don't need an all-aspect engine on a flying wing? Have you ever had such a thought?

[SovAr238A]

Post-news was created purely for "throwing manure on the fan" ...
For so to speak, seething dung and a large number of responses.

Anyone even a little interested in the "topic of aircraft" knows that the Flying Wing scheme has no way of being high-speed, highly maneuverable.
Basically.
Can not.
Accordingly, it is not capable of serving for highly maneuverable air combat!
Why attribute and discuss what cannot exist in principle?
The structure of the body of the antelope, jaw apparatus, antelope, the gastrointestinal tract of the antelope, does not allow it to chase other herbivores as a food base, tear their skin and muscle masses, and absorb them in order to saturate its body with the required elements.
Can not!
And that's it!

So it is with the flying wing scheme! ...

Learn to live in harmony with physics, biology, biochemistry and not agitation books and manuals!

[Observer2014]

What is his super maneuverability ?! Will the operator die of strabismus by accident? Well, there will fatally catch an eye for an eye and all that. This news is in style as here they squealed with joy and threw caps into the sky that it seemed like the "Hunter" was going to use an interceptor Yes, do it already just on the principle. Quietly flew up. Bombed. And if not lucky. Found. It's just iron

[Max PV]

I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, but I see the concept of the Hunter UAV as follows:
I'll start a little from the side. Once I spoke with a person who was developing domestic UAVs, and, in his words, the main problem for their adoption was not the state of domestic electronics or engine building, as they usually say, but the concept of using the UAV. The customer wanted not a cheap carrier of a pair of two dozen kilogram bombs to fight terrorists and third world countries, but a strike weapon capable of taking at least a couple of KAB-500 or missiles, capable of operating where it is too dangerous for a modern fighter pilot, for example, when breakthrough of the air defenses of NATO countries or during an attack on their headquarters or airbase.
And just "Hunter" seems to be just such a machine. That is, a decent range, speed and bomb load, and thanks to the interaction with the Su-57, also resistance to electronic warfare. In the latter case, with conventional UAVs, everything rests on the need for line of sight between the control point and the target, and the shortest possible distance between them. Fortunately, the technology, albeit at a more primitive level, has already been worked out in air defense systems and anti-tank weapons - horn or better slot antennas, ideally AFAR or PFAR, and the more powerful the transmitter, the better. And here we have a fighter equipped with just such an antenna and a transmitter (in the radar), having reduced radio signature and super-maneuverability, i.e. capable of getting closer, and even carrying its air-to-air missiles. And thus, we get a system, but not the classic master-slave, operating according to the scheme do as I do / covering, but according to the principle "drag that ground target into it, and then that one, and I will show whom and destroy air targets." That gives another significant plus in the form of the lack of the need for the Su-57 to carry also weapons for strikes against ground targets, which will have a positive effect on the flight characteristics and allows you to increase the combat radius.
And, yes, there is no sense in super-maneuverability in this case, and the shape, as it were, hints, at most, at economical speeds equal to the Su-57 and a slightly larger radius.

[Vissarion Golubov]

Why not use a hunter from ambush airfields. By analogy with mig17- Phantom.

[DO]

And not only "Hunter"

[Castro Ruiz]

An airplane of the flying krilo type does not have a bit of super-maneuvering.
Basta.