PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

Hello, please I need help, as I don't understand russian, it seems that Russia is developping a new interceptor able to reach Mach 4.3 in order to replace the wonderfull Mig 31. This fighter seems to be available in 2020. Iam frustrated as I don't understand russian, if someone among you could translate these articles please, please, please....

http://itar-tass.com/politika/1011697

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140228/997594625.html

nemrod wrote:
Hello, please I need help, as I don't understand russian, it seems that Russia is developping a new interceptor able to reach Mach 4.3 in order to replace the wonderfull Mig 31. This fighter seems to be available in 2020. Iam frustrated as I don't understand russian, if someone among you could translate these articles please, please, please....

http://itar-tass.com/politika/1011697

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20140228/997594625.html

use google translate

New MiG should have a speed of 1.5 times the stated test
28.02.2014 19:00 (Updated: 28.02.2014 19:07 ) 1 52 1 8662
In Russia, a new fighter, the MiG-41 on the basis of heavy fighter-interceptor MiG-31, whose speed was Mach 2.8.

MOSCOW, February 28 - RIA Novosti. Newest Russian fighter-interceptor MiG-41 should have a speed of at least Mach 4-4.3, told RIA Novosti Russian hero, test pilot Anatoly Kvochur.

He commented on the State Duma deputy Alexander message Tarnaeva that in Russia, a new fighter, the MiG-41 on the basis of heavy fighter-interceptor MiG-31, the rate of which was 2.8 Mach. Tarnaev experts said at a meeting of aerospace defense that the Chief of Staff, signed an order of deep modernization of Soviet fighter-interceptor MiG-31.

"This upgrade was to be held even twenty years ago. However, this did not happen, so now demands increased. They are including in the (increasing) speed interceptor to Mach 4-4.3," - said Kvochur.

Currently, the Russian fifth generation fighter developed the T-50. Its serial production is scheduled for 2016.

Basically says they have plans to significantly modernize the Mig-31... and some are requesting it to be very fast up to mach 4.3. It will be nice a stealth Version of Mig-31 with mach 4.3 speeds ,another stealth version of the SU-34 and a hypersonic exosphere plane too. and weapon like that could remain out of the combat range of any NATO missile ,specially if they plane can change directions and deploy decoys while flying very high.

2017 is a kick in start for the design of the Russia future interceptor the one that will rule the skys in the next generation

RAC "MiG" volunteered to participate in the creation of the future interceptor

The MiG-31 follow-on has the interim program designation of PAK DP, by the way.

So how are the capabilities going to differ from PAK FA? Faster and longer operational range, but less stealthy and maneuvrable? It's going to be more or less heavily based on MIG-31, or is it? Or could they design an interceptor somewhat based on the PAK-FA?

Kimppis wrote:So how are the capabilities going to differ from PAK FA? Faster and longer operational range, but less stealthy and maneuvrable? It's going to be more or less heavily based on MIG-31, or is it? Or could they design an interceptor somewhat based on the PAK-FA?

No stealth, from what we've heard it's gonna be a MiG-31 redesign, capable of flying at Mach +4 speeds.

So, I would expect it to be more streamlined and dynamic, more swept-back, shorter wings. Smaller control surfaces perhaps. More fuel capacity. To streamline it more they'll have to do something about the drag the mounted missiles generate, but I don't know what.
Dunno what engine they're gonna put on that thing; but it will give a massive amount of kick. They'll probably use that new hypersonic fuel formula they invented recently, or something like it. So I'd imagine the engine would be something we haven't seen before in fighters and interceptors. Maybe it'll have a scramjet or something for activation above certain speeds?
Probably a lot of interesting/exotic materials used too. Composites for sure, to handle the heat generated by air-friction at extreme speeds.

I'd imagine it will be less manuevrable than the MiG-31, already not particularly known for its maneuverability, and won't be able to operate from the shorter airstrips either. It will also be more expensive operationally, both for the fuel and for maintance.
Will probably have the same payload capacity and hardpoint amount as the MiG-31, but it's also possible that they might have to sacrifice here too. Won't be too bad really, with the new, ultra-long range and long-range missiles - you won't need as many of them anyhow.

It will be pretty darn fast though, and it will designed to operate at this speed for a good length of time. Essentially a trans-hypersonic interceptor.

Yes, I expect the focus will be high speed and endurance and a fairly large weapon capacity onboard.

Stealth wont be so important as speed and a large payload of heavy long range missiles and likely an array of very powerful radars probably nose and side mounted arrays to give a wide field of coverage in a few different frequency ranges.

As far as the Mig-41 goes, I think a reasonable amount of stealth can be done, but within reason. For example having a internal weapon bays could actually help both in reducing drag and RCS, and having retractable weapon pylons too. I also believe having engine intakes on top instead of on the bottom should allow more room for internal weapon bays. But at those speeds it doesn't matter if it's stealthy, it will glow like a hot-iron poker on IRST. I like the idea that it'll have large delta wings with many retractable pylons and internal weapon bays.

magnumcromagnon wrote:As far as the Mig-41 goes, I think a reasonable amount of stealth can be done, but within reason. For example having a internal weapon bays could actually help both in reducing drag and RCS, and having retractable weapon pylons too. I also believe having engine intakes on top instead of on the bottom should allow more room for internal weapon bays. But at those speeds it doesn't matter if it's stealthy, it will glow like a hot-iron poker on IRST. I like the idea that it'll have large delta wings with many retractable pylons and internal weapon bays.

Exactly, Stealth is pointless at those speeds.

If you need Stealth - use a PAK-FA.

But this has its good-sides too. If you say 'to hell with RCS', you will be able to focus completely on all the other design-considerations and have more options available for managing aerodynamic drag, high-speed, payload, materials, etc...

And yes, the retractable weapon bays and pylons would certainly be a major help for dealing with drag, if they can help it.

Lets just hope it doesn't turn out like the PAKDA and turn into a cheap subsonic flying wing eh Vann?

Of course the difference here is that this aircraft is an interceptor, so very high speed is useful to reach interception points quicker and to cover more air space... chasing down subsonic targets like B-2s and B-52s and subsonic cruise missiles will be easier flying at mach 4.3.

that would be just under 1.4km/s, which means it would cover about 84km per minute and about 5,000km per hour.

the question is... will this new aircraft bit the same size and weight as the MiG-31 or will they go for a much larger Tu-128 type aircraft for extra range and payload.

Scramjet engines should allow very stable high speed flight... the main thing that limits the MiG-31 and MiG-25 from the speeds the SR-71 could achieve was turbojet speed... those fast spinning blades came apart at mach 3+ in the MiGs, while the SR-71 used a system where the bypass air was generating all the thrust to propel the aircraft in the form of a ramjet and the turbojets just ticked over adding no propulsion to the aircraft.

The question is... do they have variable cycle engines able to operate in turbojet and scramjet mode (the latter with bypass air) or do they simply place two engines side by side with another scramjet tube between them... once supersonic close off the turbojet engines and open up the scramjet tube and accelerate...

the scramjet does not need to be big and has no blades or disks... it is just a tube where air goes in and fuel is added and ignited supersonically... and exits as thrust out the back.

SR-71 is very fast but it is just a pure sextoy. It consumed a damn huge amount of fuel and cannot fly for long. It also does not sustain/generate sufficient G-load to make a fluid turn especially at high speed.

SR-71 techs is at the similar level of MiG-21: cylindrical hull, delta wings, conical air inhale. The reason why it can achieves tremendous speed is that over 90% of its mass is made from titanium.

And just sextoy level of speed cannot make a professional air-to-air fighter like MiG-25/31.

Just like GarryB has pointed out, what we need is not only top speed but the ability to function with high effeciency at a very wide spectrum of velocity. If we need extreme speed, simple, replace all weapon hardpoints with ramjets or rocket engines.

SR-71 is very fast but it is just a pure sextoy. It consumed a damn huge amount of fuel and cannot fly for long. It also does not sustain/generate sufficient G-load to make a fluid turn especially at high speed.

The SR-71 was very good for what it was, but had the misfortune to have been designed at a time when the US was working on a Mach 3 bomber.

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 were designed specifically for dealing with mach 3 aircraft... even if they couldn't match the top speed they could operate at a higher altitude and shoot down at the target with mach 4.5+ missiles.

the S-300 family of SAMS were also able to deal with mach 3 threats so any mach 3 bomber that made it to service was on a hiding to nothing.

BTW the SR-71 could fly several thousand kms at mach 3+ because it basically flew using ramjet propulsion... few moving parts... very efficient... and like a UAV are not generally rated on their ability to pull hard turns... they generally fly from waypoint to waypoint and then land. Manouveres is for fighters.

SR-71 techs is at the similar level of MiG-21: cylindrical hull, delta wings, conical air inhale. The reason why it can achieves tremendous speed is that over 90% of its mass is made from titanium.

It is rather more than just a MiG-21 made of titanium... of course it is not the invincible stealth aircraft some of its supporters claim. It was generally tracked by radar from take off to landing by the Soviets and the Chinese. It couldn't fly particularly high but what it could do was fly very fast for a very long time over a fairly long distance.

If we need extreme speed, simple, replace all weapon hardpoints with ramjets or rocket engines.

Adding more engines is not the solution... the B-52 has 8 engines and is not really known for its high speed performance. Powerful engines operating at optimum performance in different speed ranges is the best solution... the current turbofans up to about mach 2 and a scramjet engine up to top speed of about mach 4.3 should work best.

A larger size aircraft with single leading/trailing edges might be able to optimize stealth vs. long wave over the horizon radar.
That seems about as useful stealth you could get with this. That approach is usually discussed in bombers but might apply here, depending.

mutantsushi wrote:A larger size aircraft with single leading/trailing edges might be able to optimize stealth vs. long wave over the horizon radar.
That seems about as useful stealth you could get with this.  That approach is usually discussed in bombers but might apply here, depending

Flying wing is probably the best shape for stealthy. Stealth means reducing the scattering surface and increasing the reflection surface, means reduces corners, edges,... make a plane which is as flat as a mirror.

Reflection means the coming radar beam is bounced back at one single direction which is not toward the receivers of the defense radar. While scattering means the beam is bounced back at many directions, including the defense radars.

But the problem is, air-to-air fighters need high aerodynamicity to maximize its capability in maneuverable. Fighters cannot maximize its stealth capability becase it cannot sarcifice the very valuable maneuverability.

So that's why at least at the moment, fighters cannot be stealth aircrafts. Fighters can only be partially stealth aka aircraft with stealth capability.

And that's why F-35 and F-22 cannot escape Russian ground radars. And never will.

The first aircraft had straight wings because speeds were very low.

As speeds got higher swept wings became more efficient for higher speed flight.

For some planes the combination of requirements was pretty harsh... take off at very high weight from a short strip and then accelerate to very high speed... lift jets and swing wings were used as solutions, but ultimately it was the Su-27 and MiG-29 shaped wings that gave the solution of lift in a range of speeds and heights.

For flying at mach 4.3 however, you would desperately need a very low drag design, so if you went with a flying wing it would look like a very pointed arrow head that would have problems taking off from anything not long and flat and hard.

I don't know what shape it will be but it certainly wont be a high stealth design... it is an interceptor... speed and range and enormous long range missiles are the order of the day.

A huge radar or several looking for enemy aircraft will make stealth pointless...

GarryB wrote:
I don't know what shape it will be but it certainly wont be a high stealth design... it is an interceptor... speed and range and enormous long range missiles are the order of the day.

A huge radar or several looking for enemy aircraft will make stealth pointless...

As I said before, it should have a reasonable level of stealth, and internal weapons storage plus retractable external weapon pylons should both lower RCS as well as drag. Moving at those speeds will make the plane glow like a hot iron poker on IRST either way, I suggest they develop a opaque aerosol dispersal mechanism that circulates within the skin of the aircraft...ultimately to lower the thermal signature.

GarryB wrote:Adding more engines is not the solution... the B-52 has 8 engines and is not really known for its high speed performance. Powerful engines operating at optimum performance in different speed ranges is the best solution... the current turbofans up to about mach 2 and a scramjet engine up to top speed of about mach 4.3 should work best.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think current fighters have already use both ram/scramjet and turbofans... that is the afterburner, the afterburner is essentially a ramjet put behind the turbine.

GarryB wrote:For some planes the combination of requirements was pretty harsh... take off at very high weight from a short strip and then accelerate to very high speed... lift jets and swing wings were used as solutions, but ultimately it was the Su-27 and MiG-29 shaped wings that gave the solution of lift in a range of speeds and heights.

Another solution was fly-by-wire with a sensitive computer pilot to micro-control the air inhale and to deal with the relaxed stability... so that the engine can function effectively at both high and low speed and the pilot can micromanage the aircraft at a very low stability at low speed.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think current fighters have already use both ram/scramjet and turbofans... that is the afterburner, the afterburner is essentially a ramjet put behind the turbine.

In a sense you are right, but the problem is that above about mach 3 the turbojet will fail to provide enough thrust to feed the AB with sufficient air to keep the aircraft moving.

What the SR-71 did was use air that bypassed its turbojet engine and burned fuel in it making it in effect a ramjet.

To get to mach 4.3 however a scramjet will be rather more efficient and powerful.

Another solution was fly-by-wire with a sensitive computer pilot to micro-control the air inhale and to deal with the relaxed stability... so that the engine can function effectively at both high and low speed and the pilot can micromanage the aircraft at a very low stability at low speed.

If that were true then you could just put a computer and flight control system into a highly swept fighter like a MiG-17 and get both short field capability and high top speed... and quite frankly... you can't.

No matter what aileron settings the computer chooses an Su-24 will not take off with its wings fully swept back and the same can be said for any swing wing design like the Tu-160 or F-111.

IRST detectability is irrevelant for the Mig-41 since it's very short ranged and it can fire it's missiles very far away from the enemy's IRST range. In short the future russian interceptor should be able to attack beyond the enemy's detectable range with any sensors. This means adding some stealth features is the prudent option since due to it's low maneuverability once it's detected it will have little evasion options from the enemy's attacks. Hence it needs to never be detected. I'm not saying it to be as stealthy as PAK FA but enough to make it undetectable to all NATO radar systems up to 200 km, well within the range of it's long range missiles.

The MiG-41 will be an interceptor and will spend most of its time flying at near full speed to get to an intercept point as quickly as it can... at mach 4.3 there wont be much in the air that would be a serious danger to it... it will be flying faster than the mach 2.5 sidewinder missile and the F-35 wont even be able to get close.

the focus will be detecting threats and targets, which will be bombers and cruise missile carriers and of course cruise missiles using radar of various types and its own IRST sensors.

It will be very low drag, which on its own should reduce its RCS, but I doubt they will waste much time or money making it stealthy to any degree because it will likely be scanning for targets with its radar nearly nonstop and operating with a large AB plume out its rear.

Point is when light cameras will see as far as a radar the invisible on radar would be inutil. And if a camera can see as far as a rocket own radar means the plane is safe. After all doesnt mean anything if enemy see you whit radar from 1000 km if his missiles have a range of 50 km. Only advantage is that you know the number of enemy earlyer and you have time to request a order from you commanders if engage or not the enemy. Also i think a sistem for radars and based ground troops that say in procents which are the chances to hit enemy. Imean the sistem can calculate based on number of enemy and number of own missiles that are x% chances to destroy all enemy planes, 100% chances to destroy at least z number of enemies and y% chanches to hit a% from enemy troops from b and c distances.

GarryB wrote:The MiG-41 will be an interceptor and will spend most of its time flying at near full speed to get to an intercept point as quickly as it can... at mach 4.3 there wont be much in the air that would be a serious danger to it... it will be flying faster than the mach 2.5 sidewinder missile and the F-35 wont even be able to get close.

the focus will be detecting threats and targets, which will be bombers and cruise missile carriers and of course cruise missiles using radar of various types and its own IRST sensors.

It will be very low drag, which on its own should reduce its RCS, but I doubt they will waste much time or money making it stealthy to any degree because it will likely be scanning for targets with its radar nearly nonstop and operating with a large AB plume out its rear.

point is in order to stop him hit your base you need a fast rocket too and a good radar to see invisible planes. Otherwise he would just ignore the interceptor and go ahead to your base and hit it.

And the interceptor can get enemy position from ground troops from his back? I mean if the enemy is far away the interceptor can communicate whit no worry whit own troops. And that far away advantave is given by your radar power.

victor1985 wrote:point is in order to stop him hit your base you need a fast rocket too and a good radar to see invisible planes.  Otherwise he would just ignore the interceptor and go ahead to your base and hit it.

Russia has already developed long wavelength radars on fighters to counter stealth aircrafts, thanks to AESA. That is the 10 metre L-band radar on the wings of T-50, good enough to strip off the cloak of F-22 and F-35. Probably similar radars will be applied on MiG-41.

Actually the current MiG-25/31 have already use a gigantic radar with diameter of 1,4 metre. No Western fighter radar can compete with it. MiG-25/31 radar can burn the Western radar at close range.

And of course MiG-25/31/41 will be closely cooperated with ground radars and other AA Defense/air-to-air units. And for ground radars, there is quite a lot of space to built a gigantic radar to use long wavelength, like decimeter band, meter band, or else.