Russian Hunter-B Flying Wing UAV Breaks Cover

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's generally quite a bit heavier and the methods for cooling efflux lowers temp/pressure/velocity resulting in lower thrust. Gives you some serious thermal management issues to deal with. CoG issues are sort of a big deal in a flying wing as well. Still, it's easier and lighter to remove the can and turkey feathers and just feature a round pipe a la X-47A than mount that thing. I guess they could try integrating thrust vectoring with the flying wing FCS if they are into a challenge.

Would this not just be a technology demonstrator?

UK Taranis had Hawk Engines, EFA fuel systems hawk landing gear plus other borrowed systems to make most of the craft.

I’m sure there is ongoing ground testing of RAM, aerodynamics and other things ready for a “final” design to go into development and then production?

So really the thing might at best look 80% of the final design? However it seems they have not been able to yet design a stealthy exhaust (unless it’s on another secret test bed ready to join this one in a final design).

a reply to: Zaphod58
Oopsie.Someone get there figures wrong and it made the hot air get back into the platform and burn?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Zaphod58I guess they could try integrating thrust vectoring with the flying wing FCS if they are into a challenge.

They could, but if the F-22 is stealthy enough, with twin thrust vectored engines and multi role, why do we need a 'flying wing'?

There are a lot fewer corners and sources of interaction to calculate when designing your flying wing. So it's a lot easier to design a LO flying wing than conventional design. Those same corners and intersections produce parasitic/interference drag as well. It is also structurally simpler potentially which allows quicker or simpler/cheaper production. Practically, it should enable higher payloads and range/endurance.


I guess TVC could give you greater pitch stability which is sort of a pain in the ass for a flying wing. Might even enable supersonic flight because you aren't imparting drag with constant large inputs via TVC like you would be forced to conventionally.

Oooohhh nice.Aerials or Ram inlets?

a reply to: Blackfinger

Both. The larger one on top appears to be ram air, the others look like antenna.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Gd. Look at that tail...

a reply to: anzha

I know. That was one of the first things that drew my eye.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They need to find a smaller engine.

geezus.

a reply to: anzha

It looks like it would have a godawful aft CG with that engine.

Unless it has a gawd awefully heavy radar in the nose.

a reply to: Blackfinger

That's actually something I thought about with that odd shape in front of the inlet.

a reply to: anzha

Just throwing crap against the wall, but if you have it that far aft and plan on using TV, then you have a much longer moment arm. Needs less power or other control input than otherwise. If it was effective enough in pitch authority, maybe they don't care about a very unstable cg placement? It's an interesting puzzle. Also possible it has a really long tailpipe before the turkey feathers keeping a forward cg and retaining a long moment arm. Doesn't help thrust numbers, but this is probably not a concern here as it already seems like a lot of engine. Curious how this shakes out. I 'd bet it gets a signature -reduced 2D nozzle eventually. But how similar are the data points they are grabbing going to be if the nozzle location moves?

Russian Avionics has traditionally been bigger and heavier than US units.I wonder if they have fitted a Fighter type Radar in there.Its almost an Su27,Mig29 shape that nose.

a reply to: RadioRobert

So, I have to ask. How much experience to the Russians have with flying wings?

Could it be online folks are out claiming more than what the Russians have in mind?

The last Soviet flying wing was in the 1930s. Perhaps /this/ Ohotnik is just an X plane to get their wings and then they'll make a real one? As you pointed out, RR, changing out the tail with a LO version is likely to wildly change the data.

If they are not, all they care about is frontal stealth...that means they have no belief in being able to loiter.

a reply to: anzha

If they are not, all they care about is frontal stealth...that means they have no belief in being able to loiter.

Or, in that scenario, they don't see the need to ask their strike UCAV to also be a loitering ISR platform because the requirements compete with eachother and you can't do both well. It also knocks quite a bit off the price tag (wave hello to naval aviation). Why put a heavier more complicated/expensive nozzle on if you don't plan to loiter about?


I think what we're looking at is definitely "X-plane". The question is what exactly is it demonstrating. How close does this resemble what they envision for their final product. I'm guessing pretty close. Probably gets cleaned up a bit. I think the plan is a new engine and LO nozzle, but otherwise it probably doesn't change much. It's big for a pure demonstrator. This is about proving more than just flight characteristics of a flying wing. Much more X-35 to F-35, than flying bedstead to Harrier.

We're going to need a bigger boat????

a reply to: anzha
If that isn't a propaganda flagging exercise I dont know what is. Clearly it was set up for a passing recon bird in orbit to say "look at what we have". All laid out in neat rows for size comparison including what look like munitions. Obviously Vlad wanted to send a signal loud and clear.