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?
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.