I was rather meaning the canopy slowly melting out of place
My understanding is that it is not the canopy itself that is the problem, it is the material holding it in place...
I remember reading a story about a guy flying in a MiG-25 two seater to high speed and high altitude, and it mentioned the heavy putty material used around the canopy... he asked about it and they said normal material did not work long at top speeds so they use that...
Didn't know those values thanks. Also heard thy were engine related, a normal turbojet flying 2.8 M has such a high air temperature after the compressor that it will be damaged. As said, maybe new materials allow the same configuration to be used at higher speeds but I doubt it would be much faster than MiG-31
It is a question of rotational speed putting enormous forces on the internal components of the engines... normally not good, but when the materials are heated as they are when operating at such speeds the problem is made worse... at that speed the SR-71 is getting very little thrust from its turbojet engines and it is basically flying on the ramjets.
Improved materials and cooling technology would certainly help, but the real solution is to transfer to a propulsion system more suited to flying at those speeds.
Cool, what missile is that?
The ones with air intakes...
SA-6. Kh-31, Onyx, Yakhont, Brahmos, Zircon (but with scramjet instead of ramjet).
Yeah, essentially replicating the J58 seems the obvious solution, but it seems it was very complicated and was abandoned in the end. If the MiG-41 was a special purpose plane I would agree, but it being the substitute of the MiG-31 needs to be a sturdy plane. There is always the possibility of them managing to make such an engine simple and reliable enough but without any info on new applicable propulsion coming from Russia it is difficult to say. They may have a nuclear turbojet or whatever ready for the MiG-41 and we may not know a thing
I trust them to be very clever and get something with very good performance but without being over engineered or complicated...
Substitute of MiG-31 is wrong word. MiG-41 is successor, new gen ith new tech. BTW SR-72 is under way and problem seem to be with hypersonic seed (6Ma), not heard abut engine layout be be blamed. You seem to have problems that you need an advanced plane to be simple. Same with VSTOL.
Could you please show me simple fighter for 4th gen?
When he says simple, I think he means not like a super expensive one trick pony that is very soon to become obsolete... ie spending a fortune making a mach 4 interceptor at a time when the enemy is working on a hypersonic bomber... ie mach 6.
The thing is that ramjet technology is pretty mature and mach 4 is well within ramjet performance capability.
A scramjet propulsion design should make hypersonic performance achievable, but would have a serious effect on the aircraft design.... including shape and materials.
What they could do is go for an aircraft design shape that allows for much higher speeds, but go for the less demanding speed performance goals so it will get into service in substantial numbers fairly quickly.
Later on a few design modifications and new materials and of course new scramjet engines could allow a transformation of the aircraft from a Mach 4 interceptor to something much faster later on... a bit like the Tu-144 being transformed into a rather more viable aircraft with the new NK-32 engines of the Tu-160 strategic bomber.
Thank you for confirming that there are no direct counterparts form both sides thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
Patriot, Thaad + SM actually have similar role as S-400. Russia doesnet have CVNs) . No, not always there are direct counterparts.
That is dishonest.
There are counterparts... the fact that the American models are shit does not make them not contemporaries. Russia has one CV... what it lacks in propulsion it makes up for with ship killer missiles on board.
I'd rather say they saw Russia falling apart so no more Tu-22 thread. But the had the wrong perspective
In the 1990s I think they expected Russia would be buying F-16s in the 2000s when NATO was adopting F-35s...
They wanted the F-35 programme to go ahead and the F-14 was "old". They didn't even make it AMRAAM compatible so it was pretty much the only US military aircraft still using Sparrows...
The irony is that they probably made the right choice because the F-14 and Phoenix combination would be useless now against Kinzhal and in the near future against Zircon anyway... they would need a much better missile... they would have been vulnerable anyway...
300C was when S&-71 landed, in Flight was close to 400C. With 3,3Ma.
The SR-71 is not the same plane as the MiG-25.
But simplicity is a virtue for any piece of equipment and that is specially true for Russian military, this is undisputable as the notion that putting more than one type of engine makes a plane more complex than if it only had one of them.
Many Russian aircraft have APUs so they don't need ground power to operate them at far flung airstrips with little or no support equipment...
Most aircraft engines are fine for normal speed ranges... from zero up to mach 2.4 or so, but above mach 2.4 you need a different engine type.
Imagine if jet engines were inefficient at below 800km/h... to make a mach 2 fighter you would need a propeller engine to takeoff and land and fly up to a speed where you could start your jet engine... the only difference is that it is two different types of jet engine... a turbojet and a ramjet.
Using turbojet will be used for 4,3Ma ? I'm sure aerospace engineers know nothing about propulsion effectiveness.
Trying to make a pure turbojet operate up to mach 4.3 would be like making a turboprop engine that can operate up to mach 1.8... it is not worth the effort to try.
BTW If VVS had so high demands then MiG-29k would never be built
It wasn't. They are using MiG-29KRs.