Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Share

    marcellogo

    Posts : 78
    Points : 84
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  marcellogo on Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:14 pm

    Rmf wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Rmf wrote:yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

    Yes, but they COULD if required, ie if there was a real operational need.

    .
    no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
    i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
    coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

    Actually, we don't know nothing sure about PAK-FA performance and that little indication we have says otherwise: with current engines it have not enough military power thrust for F-22 like supercruise performance.

    Still range that Mig-31 can achieve at its supersonic cruise speed of M 2.03 is decisively superior to the one of F-22 supercruising at M 1.8 maximum, so not let a fancy term to confuse you about the final outcome.







    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 863
    Points : 881
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:12 am

    Rmf wrote:
    no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
    i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
    coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

    SAM coverage gaps are worse in the Far North, so an interceptor needs to be able to relocate quickly over long distances to meet newly detected threats, and that's were raw speed is paramount. Supercruise loiter time isn't such a factor as it will not be feasible to keep T-50s in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure round-the-clock plugging of the gaps. While a T-50 based interceptor would probably be fine in the European theatre or in the Far East at Vladivostock or the naval bases, the Far North requires more kinetic performance than the T-50 can deliver. The MiG can run steady at M2.6, sprint up to M2.8, and in an emergency, pour on the juice and hit >M3.0 (though at the cost of trashing its engines if turbine overspeed is maintained). If the T-50s are like the F-22, they will be speed limited to M1.8 in practise or risk delaminating their RAM coatings, and only capable of M2.2-2.5 as a hard dynamic limit.

    Give up your pointless diatribe and just admit the MiG-31 is a superlative niche predator. The RuAF knows what it wants and it wants a MiG-31 successor, not the half-way house of a stealth jet pretending to be a fast, straight line bomber-killer. FFS, even if you don't respect the views of you fellows in this forum, show some respect to the RuAF planners.....

    russia
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

    RMF said:

    ofcourse mig-31 cant be modified to carry 6 missiles like we see

    yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

    You are suggesting the PAK FA replace the MiG-31... it is not operational either.

    The MiG-31M was the proposed upgrade of the MiG-31.

    It was considered more expensive than it needed to be at a time when there was no money to implement it anyway.

    Now there is plenty of money.

    The revision of the wing layout of the R-37 compared with the R-33 was to enable more missiles to be belly mounted...

    difference is mach 0,5 and pak-fa can turn on afterburner after all if needed ,

    even if it uses AB it is not able to fly as fast as the MiG-31 let alone any development.

    and with s-500 guarding high altitude its not a problem low altitude coverage

    S-500 is better used against incoming ICBM and SLBM warheads... not bombers or cruise missiles.

    is more important and harder to do in airspace defence whi.ch pak-fa with its 3 radars does much better

    With radar coverage over Russia having radar arrays pointing in three different directions is not that useful for an interceptor... much more use in having a big array looking forward.

    Predators have two large eyes looking forward to find and range prey.... cattle and other types in the food chain have side mounted eyes with good peripheral vision to detect threats coming from any direction. An interceptor is a hunter... an air superiority fighter is also a hunter but would find good situational awareness to be useful.

    no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.

    The MiG-31M upgrade was an upgrade that fixed a few flight control issues (LERX improved) and added new missiles and new systems.

    Re-profiling the belly to take 6 instead of 4 missiles is trivial.

    i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
    coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

    And with that you expose your excellent grasp of what you are talking about... if coverage of low altitudes is what it is all about WTF are you talking about the PAK FAs ability to supercruise for?

    You can only supercruise at medium or high altitude... in any manned aircraft.

    The PAK FA will be an excellent aircraft but will not even replace all 4th gen fighters like the MiG-35 or Su-35, let alone replace the MiG-31 or its MiG-41 replacement or even the Su-34 strike aircraft.

    Get off the F-35 train.... there is no one to rule them all... that is just Tolkien.


    Razz


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Rmf on Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:26 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
    i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
    coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

    SAM coverage gaps are worse in the Far North, so an interceptor needs to be able to relocate quickly over long distances to meet newly detected threats, and that's were raw speed is paramount.  Supercruise loiter time isn't such a factor as it will not be feasible to keep T-50s in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure round-the-clock plugging of the gaps.  While a T-50 based interceptor would probably be fine in the European theatre or in the Far East at Vladivostock or the naval bases, the Far North requires more kinetic performance than the T-50 can deliver.  The MiG can run steady at M2.6, sprint up to M2.8, and in an emergency, pour on the juice and hit >M3.0 (though at the cost of trashing its engines if turbine overspeed is maintained). If the T-50s are like the F-22, they will be speed limited to M1.8 in practise or risk delaminating their RAM coatings, and only capable of M2.2-2.5 as a hard dynamic limit.

    Give up your pointless diatribe and just admit the MiG-31 is a superlative niche predator.  The RuAF knows what it wants and it wants a MiG-31 successor, not the half-way house of a stealth jet pretending to be a fast, straight line bomber-killer. FFS, even if you don't respect the views of you fellows in this forum, show some respect to the RuAF planners.....

    russia
    that hypothetical mig-41 will eat into pak-fa budget massively and less pak=fa units will be made.
    wants and gets are 2 different things.
    if we look at what opponents are fielding pak-fa is good enough for the task , and in more massive numbers you can have more dispersed units closer to each other, and actually better coverage.
    we will see what will the pak-fa maximum speed be with new engines ,stealth is not a priority so it wont be a speed limiting factor in interceptor version of pak-fa.

    marcellogo

    Posts : 78
    Points : 84
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  marcellogo on Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:22 am

    Rmf wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
    i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
    coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

    SAM coverage gaps are worse in the Far North, so an interceptor needs to be able to relocate quickly over long distances to meet newly detected threats, and that's were raw speed is paramount.  Supercruise loiter time isn't such a factor as it will not be feasible to keep T-50s in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure round-the-clock plugging of the gaps.  While a T-50 based interceptor would probably be fine in the European theatre or in the Far East at Vladivostock or the naval bases, the Far North requires more kinetic performance than the T-50 can deliver.  The MiG can run steady at M2.6, sprint up to M2.8, and in an emergency, pour on the juice and hit >M3.0 (though at the cost of trashing its engines if turbine overspeed is maintained). If the T-50s are like the F-22, they will be speed limited to M1.8 in practise or risk delaminating their RAM coatings, and only capable of M2.2-2.5 as a hard dynamic limit.

    Give up your pointless diatribe and just admit the MiG-31 is a superlative niche predator.  The RuAF knows what it wants and it wants a MiG-31 successor, not the half-way house of a stealth jet pretending to be a fast, straight line bomber-killer. FFS, even if you don't respect the views of you fellows in this forum, show some respect to the RuAF planners.....

    russia
    that hypothetical mig-41 will eat into pak-fa budget massively and less pak=fa units will be made.
    wants and gets are 2 different things.
    if we look at what opponents are fielding pak-fa is good enough for the task , and in more massive numbers you can have more dispersed units closer to each other, and actually better coverage.
    we will see what will the pak-fa maximum speed be with new engines ,stealth is not a priority so it wont be a speed limiting factor in interceptor version of pak-fa.

    What budget? seems me that you think that you are simply transferring the western way of designing, developing and producing planes into russian.
    They simply doesn't work like that.
    There is not actually any fixed order or allocated budget for PAK-Fa acquisition, just a intention of acquiring 12 1st serial planes to equip a training unit and even when serial production would began they would sign a different contract for any batch like they have always done.
    There is nothing like a long term fixed acquisition program in russian practises.
    Add that PAK-FA and the MiG-41will pertain to two completely different branches of aerospace forces (and that the planes that they would eventually substituted was ordered by two then completely separated armed forces)to understand how the idea of a competition over budgets between them just doesn't exist.
    PAK-FA is actually with Su-35S, MiG-35 and Mi-28NM in the frontal aviation, while the MiG-31/41 would be listed with S-400 , S-500 and Ad radars instead in the aereospace defence forces.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10764
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  George1 on Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:32 am

    marcellogo wrote:

    What budget? seems me that you think that you are simply transferring the western way of designing, developing and producing planes into russian.
    They simply doesn't work like that.
    There is not actually any fixed order or allocated budget for PAK-Fa acquisition, just a intention of acquiring 12 1st serial planes to equip a training unit and even when serial production would began  they would sign a different contract for any batch like they have always done.
    There is nothing like a long term fixed acquisition program in russian practises.
    Add that PAK-FA and the MiG-41will pertain to two completely different branches of aerospace forces (and that the planes that they would eventually substituted was ordered by two then completely separated armed forces)to understand how the idea of a competition over budgets between them just doesn't exist.
    PAK-FA is actually with Su-35S, MiG-35 and Mi-28NM in the frontal aviation, while the MiG-31/41 would be listed with S-400 , S-500 and Ad radars instead in the aereospace defence forces.

    Introduce yourself here pls:
    http://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1229
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:00 am

    I'm inclined to believe that the Mig-41 will be a much needed replacement due to aformentioned long range patrol. But I also really hope that it will be agressively marketed. The achievement of creating a manned hypersonic interceptor will be a massive matter of prestige that will discredit retarded American hypersonic drone vaporware.

    A massive speed will also increase the flight speed and range of existing BVR missiles due to the aircraft's speed adding to the missile's, thus imrpoving the performance of Russian weaponry.

    Is there any chance that the Mig-41 might use more than 2 engines?

    What is the chance of it being a flying wing?

    Also, i wonder why the russians can build mach 3+ capable engines since the 60s but cant build an equivalent to the F-22's engine. Is miniaturization the problem?

    Is it possible that the Mig-41 will mount a cannon? Given that it will travel almost as fast as a 30mm shell there might be a danger of it hitting itself.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5609
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:32 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I'm inclined to believe that the Mig-41 will be a much needed replacement  due to aformentioned long range patrol. But I also really hope that it will be agressively marketed. The  achievement of creating a manned hypersonic interceptor will be a massive matter of prestige that will discredit retarded American hypersonic drone vaporware.

    A massive speed will also increase the flight speed and range of existing BVR missiles due to the aircraft's speed adding to the missile's, thus imrpoving the performance of Russian weaponry.

    Is there any chance that the Mig-41 might use more than 2 engines?

    What is the chance of it being a flying wing?

    Also, i wonder why the russians can build mach 3+ capable engines since the 60s but cant build an equivalent to the F-22's engine. Is miniaturization the problem?

    Is it possible that the Mig-41 will mount a cannon? Given that it will travel almost as fast as a 30mm shell there might be a danger of it hitting itself.

    There is veeery slim chance MiG-41 will be "hypersonic", especially due to fact people do not fully understand what does that term mean. To be an actual hypersonic object, something needs to fly on speeds between 5 and 10 mach numbers. For manned aircraft that would see an actual service at this point, that is not achievable.

    Interceptors with more than 2 engines are not coming back either, actually anything except bombers with more than 2 engines isnt coming back, here we are talking about an actual combat aircraft not transport or similar.

    Problem is for start of metalurgical nature, then comes list after that. However Pratt & Whitney F119 is also getting old there are in perspective alot better engines coming.

    You cant use cannon and hope for some kind of effect while flying on supersonic speeds.

    PS Flying wing cant be supersonic, let alone hypersonic


    Last edited by Militarov on Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1562
    Points : 1562
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:27 am

    In my viewpoint, they could very well make a new interceptor (Mikoyan) by using what is known in stealth in terms of design of aircraft more so than materials because a jet that needs to fly as fast as MiG-31 does, requires a titanium chasis, is this correct? If so, RAM may not work so well with such a jet (they could come up with some kind of composite titanium I suppose). But what is important is just making it quite LO due to shaping and use a lot of the current and known technology that Russia produces/is producing. What has been learnt from the PAK FA development could be implemented in the jet - AFAR radar, sensor suite, helmet and comm systems, integration with ground radar systems (already exists, I know). But of course, engines will be #1 in replacing or modernizing (greatly increasing efficiency). They do not have to go crazy in design which would end up making the jet expensive and somewhat pointless.

    But already Mikoyan stated that they have not used full potential of upgrades to MiG-31 jet. So I imagine that they will continue to upgrade the MiG-31 in the mean time to make it cheaper and a way to introduce newer technologies to the jet that can be later integrated into a newer design.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:02 pm

    that hypothetical mig-41 will eat into pak-fa budget massively and less pak=fa units will be made.

    You might as well be saying you hope they don't do any more upgrades of Tu-22M3s because if they upgrade them they wont be replaced...

    Systems are to be used... PAK FA has a specific role and is the solution to a particular requirement.

    They will buy as many as they need and no more.

    Pretending it is for other roles too so we need more makes no practical sense... especially suggesting they might be useful replacing something they are not well suited to replace.

    wants and gets are 2 different things.

    I think you are confusing Russia with the West. An F-35 can do everything even if it is rather more expensive than all the aircraft it is replacing...

    Having one type to do everything is not cheaper if the one type you choose is expensive to buy and expensive to operate and is not ideal for most of the roles it is taking on.

    Standardisation taken too far.

    if we look at what opponents are fielding pak-fa is good enough for the task , and in more massive numbers you can have more dispersed units closer to each other, and actually better coverage.

    As hypersonic weapons and hypersonic aircraft become an actual issue having a fast interceptor becomes even more critical.

    we will see what will the pak-fa maximum speed be with new engines ,stealth is not a priority so it wont be a speed limiting factor in interceptor version of pak-fa.

    While many aircraft on paper can fly faster than Mach 2 not many actually fly faster than Mach 2 for any period of time.

    There is a good reason why the MiG-31 is so big and heavy and made of titanium and steel.

    For short dashes of 20 minutes the MiG-31 can sustain a speed of Mach 2.6... for top speed... mach 2.83 it can fly for 5 minutes before heating becomes a problem... do you think this wont apply to the PAK FA... that somehow its engines will miraculously allow it to defy friction heating of the outer skin?

    I'm inclined to believe that the Mig-41 will be a much needed replacement due to aformentioned long range patrol. But I also really hope that it will be agressively marketed. The achievement of creating a manned hypersonic interceptor will be a massive matter of prestige that will discredit retarded American hypersonic drone vaporware.

    Improved aircraft jet engines that can operate in ramjet or scramjet mode, plus new developments in technology like heat resistant aluminium could make the new design much lighter and much faster and much more capable...

    A massive speed will also increase the flight speed and range of existing BVR missiles due to the aircraft's speed adding to the missile's, thus imrpoving the performance of Russian weaponry.

    Indeed. Also plans for high altitude high speed launch of satellites becomes even more practical with rather heavier payloads becoming realistic... not to mention now that the ABM treaty no longer exists they can look at anti satellite weapons able to hit targets in much higher orbits. Anything that can launch a satellite into orbit can hit another satellite in orbit.

    Is there any chance that the Mig-41 might use more than 2 engines?

    It might have combined engines... ie two large high bypass turbojets where the bypass channels can be used as scramjets at high speed... or they might just have separate scramjet engines and turbofan engines... they likely wont want too many as they take up space.

    What is the chance of it being a flying wing?

    Almost zero.

    As you fly past the speed of sound the centre of gravity shifts dramatically and you need fully moving horizontal tail surfaces to compensate... so you need at least a moving tail to prevent a yaw and a crash.

    I guess it is possible to use thrust vector engines to deal with yaw changes... and of course such a vectoring would allow the crew to trim the aircraft in flight to minimise drag in high speed cruise...

    Also, i wonder why the russians can build mach 3+ capable engines since the 60s but cant build an equivalent to the F-22's engine. Is miniaturization the problem?

    The requirements are different... no conventional turbojet engine operates faster than mach 2.5 and lives.

    Is it possible that the Mig-41 will mount a cannon? Given that it will travel almost as fast as a 30mm shell there might be a danger of it hitting itself.

    Probably not, though you answered your own question regarding missiles.

    High flight speed and altitude extends the range of missiles and also guns but in the latter case not in any meaningful way.

    A gun is added weight and cost, with little practical use for an interceptor these days... on the MiG-31 it was intended for shooting down cruise missiles, but it was found the R-60MK was more efficient, and the 23mm gatling gun fitted proved to be more trouble than it was worth in terms of vibration and flammable gas buildup. With only 250 rounds on board and a firing rate of 200 shells per second (yes... 12,000 rpm) it was not going to be used much.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3378
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  kvs on Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:17 pm

    The F-35 is a taxpayer milking operation. The notion of a universal tool is retarded. That is why we have different tools
    in our toolboxes. If economies of scale relied on the production of a single product then every company would produce only
    a single product.

    The stealth on the Mig-41 is not a priority item. It is not a ground attack jet that needs to sneak past enemy defenses (of some 3rd
    world country only, there is no such thing as true stealth when facing an advanced adversary). If stealth is an issue, then yes Russia
    should use plasma stealth (it is real and it works) but more expensive to implement than RAM coatings which are much cheaper. But
    shaping will already give it most of the value of stealth anyway as noted above.
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Rmf on Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:21 am

    so it wont have stealth like pak-fa and it will be detected from long range ,then due to speed it will glow like a sun on the enemy irst ,and it will be made out of titanium so it will be very cheap Rolling Eyes Laughing No yeah talk about a tax payer milking program clown
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:57 pm

    so it wont have stealth like pak-fa and it will be detected from long range ,then due to speed it will glow like a sun on the enemy irst ,and it will be made out of titanium so it will be very cheap Rolling Eyes Laughing No yeah talk about a tax payer milking program

    It will also be carrying the biggest and most powerful radars fitted to a fighter sized aircraft and will be scanning for threats and targets and will be combining its detection sensors (probably wing mounted antenna arrays for longer wave radar and a nose mounted AESA in x band and Ku band later perhaps even photonic radar and no doubt IRST) to scan for all sorts of things like stealthy cruise missiles, high and low flying bombers and subsonic stealthy bombers and high flying hypersonic aircraft and weapons.

    Even heat resistant aluminium will not be cheap being a new technology, and it will likely have all sorts of expensive systems on board including very heavy AAMs and lots and lots of fuel.

    It is never going to be cheap, but it will be rather better than anything else on the planet for stopping an enemy attack.

    This is not being driven by the manufacturer... MiG is not trying to milk the cow... the Aerospace Defence forces are asking for a replacement for the MiG-31 and they are mentioning a few characteristics.

    Having increased speed is not unreasonable... the limiting factor for speed on the MiG-31 was that the engines were at risk to overspeed and trash themselves.

    A simple upgrade where bypass air is used as a ramjet engine so the air moving through the engine blades is greatly reduced or even eliminated would make them vastly more efficient and capable at much higher speeds.

    A variable cycle jet engine that is a medium bypass turbofan, but operates as a ramjet or scramjet at high flight speeds offers the potential for an aircraft that can take off from a conventional runway and fly potentially up to orbital speeds with the engines in scramjet mode.

    Of course they are not talking about mach 25 plus flight... only mach 4.5 or so which is not even hypersonic, but the problems of burning fuel at that speed are big enough and of course dealing with the friction heating of the aircraft are issues too.

    Lighter, stronger, heat resistant materials developed in the last 50 years would make it easier and simpler... but likely not cheaper to make.

    Information from such development will be useful for designing hypersonic cruise missiles which could also use combined turbojet scramjet engines... a super long range heavy cruise missile could be launched in subsonic mode with external fuel tanks cruising at medium to high altitude for the first few thousand kilometres... then the drop tanks released and the turbojet put into after burner mode accelerating to mach 2 or so and then changing into scramjet mode and accelerate continuously as fuel is burned and the weight decreases as it gets closer to its target... Large high lift cruise wing can be dropped for small low drag penetration wing for final stage attack at mach 7 or 8...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Azi

    Posts : 168
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2016-04-06

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Azi on Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:28 pm

    A Mig-41 interceptor and SuT-50 will be complete different planes. Main role of a Mig-41 will be interception of bombers and cruise missile. Mig-41 similar to Mig-31 will have NO dogfighting capabilities. The Mig-41 will climb high up to the stratosphere, much like the Mig-31 and can serve as launching plattform to kill satellites or intercept ballistic warheads (of course with the correct missiles). Of course no Su T-50 will share the important characteristic with Mig-41. With Mig-41 (now with Mig-31) it's possible to destroy a huge amount of cruise missiles and the cruise missile carriers (B-52 and so on), before it reaches the land based AD systems, increasing incredible the defense capability. So it's the first wall of defense!

    Speed...
    It's possible to be 10-20 % faster as Mig-31 using the same two D-30-F6 engines, because the Mig-31 is far from being aerodynamic perfect. No one knows if just a bit better turbofans or none will be used in Mig-41!? For turbofans there is a physical limit to speed, so a jet using turbofans can't be much much faster than Mig-31 now!

    Heat...
    Heat at supersonic or hypersonic speed occurs only at the edges. There is enough room and space for composite materials and new alloys to reduce the weight of the interceptor.

    Stealth...
    The Mig-41 will have NO stealth characteristics, or better wrote it don't need stealth characteristic! Does it need stealth characteristic for intercepting cruise missile??? In the mid an higher supersonic area the shape of good aerodynamic and stealth close each other out.

    Cost...
    Of course the costs will be high, but Mig-41 will not cannibalize the Su T-50 because production of the Mig-41 will start from 2025 or 2030 on. The Mig-41 will replace the Mig-31 and only 50 to 100 Mig-41 will be needed.

    The Mig-41 will come but it's now clear music of the future! The Mig-31 will serve Russian Air Force good for many years now. Russian Air Force has other more important construction sites to work on. Russian Air Force lacks a good, modern, light multirole fighter! The Mig-35 will fill the hole of the light multirole fighter for first, but I think earlier or later the project of Mig-LMFS should be continued. Russian Air Force needs a replacement of Tu-22M and Tu-95, but this will be current project PAK-DA. In my opinion Russian Air Force must focus now on the possibilities to deliver long and heavy CAS, in form of a new Su-25, gunship, drones whatever.
    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-02

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:10 am

    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.

    avatar
    Pierre Sprey

    Posts : 34
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2017-02-02

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Pierre Sprey on Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:17 am

    Rmf wrote:so it wont have stealth like pak-fa and it will be detected from long range ,then due to speed it will glow like a sun on the enemy irst ,and it will be made out of titanium so it will be very cheap Rolling Eyes Laughing No yeah talk about a tax payer milking program clown

    This is typical thinking of the stealth absolutist orthodoxy who thinks that wars on paper always translate to wars in real life.

    If its an interceptor that's protecting Russian airspace, I don't think stealth is useful.

    It will also make for good theater for minor airspace violations. I look forward to seeing the fastest jet in the world scream onto the scene through a nato camcorder.

    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-09

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:04 am

    Pierre Sprey wrote:
    Rmf wrote:so it wont have stealth like pak-fa and it will be detected from long range ,then due to speed it will glow like a sun on the enemy irst ,and it will be made out of titanium so it will be very cheap Rolling Eyes Laughing No yeah talk about a tax payer milking program clown

    This is typical thinking of the stealth absolutist orthodoxy who thinks that wars on paper always translate to wars in real life.

    If its an interceptor that's protecting Russian airspace, I don't think stealth is useful.

    It will also make for good theater for minor airspace violations. I look forward to seeing the fastest jet in the world scream onto the scene through a nato camcorder.


    Well if it stays true to what the 31 does then it would be used against ships and other targets so some stealth would benefit it.

    If it's just a pure interceptor not really.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:24 pm

    If its an interceptor that's protecting Russian airspace, I don't think stealth is useful.

    Not only would it not be useful... it would be bad.

    It would add cost and complexity in design, production and operational use... and add no value.

    The problems of very high speed for a jet powered aircraft have been solved in terms of engines... the Russians are masters of combined rocket ramjet propulsion... modifying a turbojet into a bypass ramjet turbojet engine would be fairly straightforward.

    The key problems would be materials in terms of friction heating and they have mentioned high temperature aluminium... what else would that be for?



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:54 pm

    Pierre Sprey wrote:
    Rmf wrote:so it wont have stealth like pak-fa and it will be detected from long range ,then due to speed it will glow like a sun on the enemy irst ,and it will be made out of titanium so it will be very cheap Rolling Eyes Laughing No yeah talk about a tax payer milking program clown

    This is typical thinking of the stealth absolutist orthodoxy who thinks that wars on paper always translate to wars in real life.

    If its an interceptor that's protecting Russian airspace, I don't think stealth is useful.

    It will also make for good theater for minor airspace violations. I look forward to seeing the fastest jet in the world scream onto the scene through a nato camcorder.


    Right. The issue of stealth is not if Mig-41 will be stealth or not, the issue is will it be able to detect at long range stealth Aircrafts. They will probably put more money on research for new radars and datalinks with the ground air defense system than for stealth.

    @Pierre Sprey Nice pictures !! The internal bays are very usefull for a mach 3 fighter and the idea of the engines on the top to allow more internal space Under them is very good.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:59 pm


    The problems of very high speed for a jet powered aircraft have been solved in terms of engines... the Russians are masters of combined rocket ramjet propulsion... modifying a turbojet into a bypass ramjet turbojet engine would be fairly straightforward.

    Airbus has an idea about this too.

    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Rmf on Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:28 am

    http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/3957569
    Потенциал же самого перехватчика далеко не исчерпан — до сих пор по ряду параметров он не превзойден. Если говорить о перспективах перехватчиков, то у головной компании "МиГ" и у нас есть предложения по созданию нового изделия, но решение о начале работ по этой теме пока не принято.
    interview with yurij beli.
    mig proposed new project but authorisation for starting work on that plane was not given.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:37 pm

    The piece you quote says permission was not given for a replacement aircraft because there is scope to further improve the existing aircraft.

    That makes sense for the next ten years but for the 20 years after that they will need a replacement so it would be logical for them to be working on something.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 442
    Points : 511
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  jhelb on Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:10 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    above all one where a limited employment of tactical nuclear warheads, purposely developed for this product, could render almost irrelevant dozen of years and several hundreds billion dollars of investement in aircraft production of almost any kind by part of most likely potential opponents and "force" a sudden de-escalation of the conflict.

    You're saying the MiG 31 will carry tactical nuclear missiles?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1635
    Points : 1660
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  eehnie on Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:04 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Rmf wrote:http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/3957569
    Потенциал же самого перехватчика далеко не исчерпан — до сих пор по ряду параметров он не превзойден. Если говорить о перспективах перехватчиков, то у головной компании "МиГ" и у нас есть предложения по созданию нового изделия, но решение о начале работ по этой теме пока не принято.
    interview with yurij beli.
    mig proposed new project but authorisation for starting work on that plane was not given.

    The piece you quote says permission was not given for a replacement aircraft because there is scope to further improve the existing aircraft.

    That makes sense for the next ten years but for the 20 years after that they will need a replacement so it would be logical for them to be working on something.

    It seems that the question about a possible successor of the MiG-31 has not been denied. Obviously the MiG-31 is not outdated as military concept, and may have potential of improvement still. Even the MiG-25 remains still actual as military concept. But it means not a rejection of the MiG-41, like the Su-PAK-FA means not a rejection of the Su-27 or the Tu-PAK-DA means not a rejection of the Tu-160.

    The MiG-31 and the MiG-25 are today out of production, then avery aircraft that goes out of the active service/reserve by accident or other reason, goes without replacement while there is not a new model available for production. And with the time obviously the number of both will decline.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:01 am; edited 1 time in total

    eridan

    Posts : 147
    Points : 153
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  eridan on Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:34 am

    There is little chance we'll see a newly designed mig-31 successor enter service in the next 15 years. So all this is fun talk but it's sort of meaningless right now.

    Sponsored content

    Re: MiG-41 New Interceptor:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:01 am