. . . capable of using 300-400-meter-long runways to take off and land.

Maybe this has been reported before, but it’s a new tidbit of information for me.

400 meters works out to roughly 1,300 feet. According to a quick Google search, the Su-27 needs a runway nearly three times that length. The Typhoon can supposedly land with 1,600 feet of runway, but the original ATF requirements called for thrust reversers to land on less than 2,000 feet. The requirement was later relaxed to 3,000 feet.

So 300-400 meters would seem like an ambitious goal. Any speculation on how Sukhoi plans to achieve it?

Fortunately RSM55 stated the NPO Saturn drawing is even less realistic…. Phew….

It certainly isn’t a good drawing, if that’s what he was getting at. The wings are too large, the vertical tails too small and the whole thing just looks like it came out of a G.I. Joe kit.

And yet . . . what grabbed my attention was the remarkable similarity between the Saturn drawing and this RCS model, which apparently was shown on Russian TV. If these two images really came from two entirely separate sources, then you have to wonder . . . ?

And the proportions are much more realistic here, at least to my eye.

I guess there’s no chance of seeing a model/mock-up of the PAK FA?

–Gavin.

Well, the attachment doesn’t seem to be working, so …

http://flightgear.stockill.org.uk/scenery/taxiways/EGYC-td.jpg

–Gavin.

Hi, lovemigs.

From what I have read, for the forseeable future, air force planners envision a “mixed force” of manned and unmanned aircraft.

A UCAV’s biggest advantage is cost. UCAVs will be smaller and lighter, and therefore less expensive to build per unit, than manned aircraft. You also save tremendous money by the fact that a UCAV can simply sit the hanger for years until it is needed.

I read recently that a typical training mission for an F-16 costs $13,000. A UCAV doesnµt need to fly any training missions. Obviously, you still have to fly a UCAV now and then to test it, but it doesnµt need to be tested as often as a pilot needs to train and practice. UCAV operators can train almost exclusively on simulators.

You touched on one big disadvantage: it’s at least theoritically possible to interfere with a UCAV’s control system, if it’s being remotely operated. I don’t think it’s likely that an enemy could “hijack” it, but the enemy will certainly try to jam it.

But I think the biggest disadvantage is simply the old “boots on the ground” principle. You can send a robotic tank into Baghdad, and it could kill a lot of enemy soldiers, but you can’t really say you have “taken” Baghdad until a platoon of Marines are sleeping in Sadaam’s palace, if you see what I mean.

I think the same thing goes for airspace. A UCAV could do a lot of damage, but do you really have air superiority if all the “pilots” are in a bunker in California?

–Gavin.

Are there any comments regarding the configuration ???? Regardless if it’s a fake or a real picture !

Deino 😉

I’ve already expressed my concern about the intakes. Even if this design is intended for ground attack, I’m not sure the dorsal intakes would be a wise choice. Also, the aircraft seems kind of small to include much of weapons bay, without which the stealth characteristics would be pointless.

Otherwise, it reminds me of Daniel Raymer’s NGAF study for the Rand Corp.
And I’ve always thought Raymer’s design was a great “what if.”

–Gavin.

Well … what about these? The MiG 7.01 and an unknown wind tunnel model, also from MiG.