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.