PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

Didn't they say they were presenting an aircraft that was a fundamentally new type never shown before or were they referring to the Yak-40 with the new electric engine?

Take a chill pill PD, most of the time it turns out it was the reporter who spruced up the translation rather than any false statement.

I seem to remember the comment being a new plane rather than just new type of propulsion.

Also looking through the pdf... in the full scale samples section they have the Sigma-4 all electric light aircraft, a supersonic civilian aircraft called Strizh, upgraded Ansat-M and what I am most interested in is the LMS Baikal... which I assume is the An-2 replacement aircraft... but would it not be rather nice to add a letter to that designation...

GarryB wrote:Take a chill pill PD, most of the time it turns out it was the reporter who spruced up the translation rather than any false statement.

I seem to remember the comment being a new plane rather than just new type of propulsion.

Also looking through the pdf... in the full scale samples section they have the Sigma-4 all electric light aircraft, a supersonic civilian aircraft called Strizh, upgraded Ansat-M and what I am most interested in is the LMS Baikal... which I assume is the An-2 replacement aircraft... but would it not be rather nice to add a letter to that designation...

Later discussion on this subject in one of the linked videos indicates that the tech may not be all that simple in this
electric engine. Borisov said that it was a high temperature superconductor engine. PD, as usual, with his mentally
retarded spew on this forum is just filling it with his excrement. Which all the normal people have to step around.

Two part article re. MiG 41, dunno if shared on here before (mightwell have been)

Interesting but flawed.

It claims speed is not important for modern fighters, but it ignores the fact that the MiG-31 and MiG-25 are not fighters, they are dedicated interceptors, and for a dedicated interceptor speed is more important than the ability to manouver because they are not intended for dogfighting, but intercepting targets and their flight speed determines how far out they intercept their targets... therefore high speed is actually critical.

If it wasn't then the MiG-31 would be dead and Su-35s and soon Su-57s would be doing the job.

For normal fighters very high flight speed is bad... it costs money... it adds weight, it dramatically increases fuel burn, and makes more expensive materials necessary in the construction.

The F-16 and F-18 were both made cheaper to buy and to operate by limiting their top speed to mach 2 and mach 1.8 respectively because to get to mach two you need to fly level and straight for long periods burning lots of fuel to do so and once you achieve top speed your ability to turn or manouver is limited compared with those same abilities at lower speeds.

A zoom climb and launch of a missile benefits from an acceleration, but most aircraft rarely accelerate to mach 2 ever.... it takes too much time and burns too much fuel.

The exceptions are the MiG-25 and MiG-31 which are both expected to take off and accelerate to mach 2.4 and then fly to the launch position at that speed and then launch their weapons and fly back home at a similar high speed so they can land and refuel and rearm and do it again.

Anatoly Kvochur would know this and that would be why he mentioned a mach 4 speed because that should be attainable in a combined turbojet ramjet powered aircraft... as mentioned in the article the SR-71 used such propulsion already... it is not super state of the art... the main problem has been having an aircraft type that would need such propulsion and requirements for the MiG-31 to loiter for long periods required a turbofan design.

Talking about the Tempest and NCAD and other designs is meaningless because none of those countries have 6,000km of coastline to defend in the arctic...


Also for a professional article I would think the writer would take the time to look up the proper spelling of Kvochurs name...

Otherwise it is a reasonable article, but the basic things it gets wrong is that Kvochur is a professional pilot and is not a media whore like a lot of experts that the media quote in such situations, so dismissing the idea of the new aircraft being faster than the current aircraft is not so clear cut... indeed if speed is not so critical then a modified version of the Tu-22M would be ideal... mach 2 speed... space for an enormous radar, already in service, huge (24 ton) weapon load capacity, and excellent flight range with an engine that is being upgraded with the Blackjacks so money spent upgrading the engine is going to be spend anyway.

The fact is that they want the replacement for the MiG-31 to be fast.

Also this reporter seems well informed as to who said what but does not seem to know about the new replacement for the R-37M in development and near operational deployment... the izd 810 developed as part of the missile suite for the Su-57 and other future fighters.

The faster the aircraft goes when it launches the missile the faster the missile will fly.

Altitude is useful too as the missile will have a top speed depending on its altitude.

At low altitude the air is thicker so the top speed of most solid rocket motor missiles is limited at low altitude so excess thrust is simply wasted because drag is enormous.

Launching from altitude allows much higher speeds to be achieved and makes higher speeds easier to maintain.

It says the MiG-31 is made of titanium but I never heard of it being that way. It always heard it was mostly made of nickel steel alloy to lower the price with titanium only being used in small sections of the aircraft.

The exterior of the MiG-25 is mostly nickel steel, but the MiG-31 has a lot more aluminium and also titanium parts, to reduce weight.

The SR-71 is all titanium, and was so expensive it was repeatedly retired and then brought back into use because of its capabilities.

George1 wrote:Specifications of MiG-41, Russia's Sixth Generation Fighter Jet with Terrible Capabilities

   Country: Russia
   Length: 25 meters
   Width: 22 meters
   Height: 6.50 meters
   Empty Weight: 50,000 kg
   Takeoff Weight: 100,000 kg (max)
   Max Speed ​​: 2,284 mph
   Range: 5,000 km
   Max Altitude: 12,500 meters
   Armament : 4 x High Speed ​​Long Range Missiles

https://www.international-military.com/2022/06/specifications-of-mig-41-russias-sixth.html

Terrible capabilities?

I think I know what they are trying to portray but the wording is very poorly thought out.

I do have quite the excitement to see the MiG-41.

That is absolutely ridiculous... first of all the MiG-41 will be an interceptor and not a fighter, and there is no such thing as a 6th gen anything yet.

the max speed is too low and the max altitude is pathetic... some bombers can fly higher than that... but carrying four missiles that is a very poor joke.

Always suspicious went they mix units... being a Russian plane I would expect all the numbers to be metric but it gives speed in miles per hour?

MiG have already stated that the plane will be a new design because the MiG-31 is based on the MiG-25 which is 1960s technology.

I call bullshit on that article.

Also @thegopnik:

maks 2021 looks fucking depressing on page 7

and

@PD

When everyone inevitably call them out on being bragging blowhards they will just pretend they never announced any fundamentally new aircraft

Su-75...

Gotta laugh at the "Max Altitude: 12,500 meters", the MiG-31 operates at 20km and can temporarily climb even higher. Also, Mach 4.1 is quite a bit faster than 2,284 mph. More western propaganda I guess? 

George1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

George1 wrote:Specifications of MiG-41, Russia's Sixth Generation Fighter Jet with Terrible Capabilities

   Country: Russia
   Length: 25 meters
   Width: 22 meters
   Height: 6.50 meters
   Empty Weight: 50,000 kg
   Takeoff Weight: 100,000 kg (max)
   Max Speed ​​: 2,284 mph
   Range: 5,000 km
   Max Altitude: 12,500 meters
   Armament : 4 x High Speed ​​Long Range Missiles

https://www.international-military.com/2022/06/specifications-of-mig-41-russias-sixth.html

Terrible capabilities?

I think I know what they are trying to portray but the wording is very poorly thought out.

I do have quite the excitement to see the MiG-41.

i think with "terrible" they mean "impressive" not "bad"

I figured that but it's kinda funny none the less on the wording.

And I agree with the others, the max altitude is off.