PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

I suspect they mean terrible in the sense of not great... carrying four missiles for a plane that has a MTOW approaching the 120 tons of the Tu-22M3 is pathetic... unless they mean 40 missiles and I really don't think they do.

They are pulling numbers from their asses... but what impression are they trying to create.

Russia can't make good planes?

HATO needs a super plane that out performs it in most regards?

A MiG-21 can carry more than four missiles...

Seems an odd source to get such a scoop.... would think if the figures were released for real it would be TASS or RT or Sputnik revealing them... and I get the sinking feeling that getting real information about new Russian weapons is going to become harder and harder like it was during the cold war.

Can we bring attention to the YF-12? While we're talking about how hard it would be make a successor to the MiG-31, it seems like the americans developed an interceptor with  superior performance and lower RCS than the MiG-31, the YF-12.
The only reason it was canceled was hubris that the continental US is inaccessible to soviet aircraft, it being a defensive aircraft while the USAF was an offensive neocolonialist force, and because americans didn't have Hypersonic missiles and ASAT missiles which it could use.

The YF-12 can reach mach 3.3, while the MiG-31 2.8. It had better energy retention with the delta wings too. Its only disadvantage over the MiG-31 was slightly lower payload and not enough space for a large radome.


Can't the russians learn from the lessons of it and put into service a similarly designed aircraft, with the same ramjet/turbojet hybrid engines, which the americans managed to build in the dozens even in the 70s? This should be completely doable as long as theres money. A delta winged mach 3.3-3.5 interceptor can have L-Band radars installed on its leading edges too.

Makes you wonder why they stopped making them and didn't bother making any other really fast planes...

Possibly because the SR-71 and family were so mind bogglingly expensive that even the US couldn't afford to operate them and kept cancelling them and then putting them back into service and then cancelling them.

If they were paid for out of the USAF budget they wouldn't exist... it is not an accident they were run by the CIA like the U-2 was.

Developed means putting into service, so no... they didn't develop a better interceptor than the MiG-25 let alone the MiG-31... the F-14 was a frankensteins monster based on the F-111 which as its designation suggests was supposed to be a carrier based fighter but was way too heavy.

Its radar and heavy long range AAM eventually evolved into the F-14 and Phoenix... the missile was better but the radar was inferior to the set fitted to the MiG-31.

The YF-12 can reach mach 3.3, while the MiG-31 2.8. It had better energy retention with the delta wings too. Its only disadvantage over the MiG-31 was slightly lower payload and not enough space for a large radome.

To be fair it was a proposal that never achieved the performance claims attributed to it... had they built it it would have sucked funds from more important projects and not really made the US any safer.

The Russians will have learned quite a bit from their scramjet experience and the aerodynamics of the plane will be aiming a bit higher than just Mach 3 I suspect.

The physical shape of the SR-71 seriously limited its height performance capabilities... otherwise it would be an obvious candidate to break some of the records the MiG-31 set regarding ceiling.

The absolute maximum speed of the YF-12 was M3,3. The MiG-31´s speed is fixed at M2,8 because it´s a mass produced plane which engines should last longer then a few hours. It can reach higher speeds if neccessary.

The F-111 was the real predecessor of the F-35 in the way that it was developed for the Air Force and Naval Air Force as interceptors. But then if grew heavier and heavier. The Navy axed it and the Air Force turned it into an bomber.

limb wrote:Can we bring attention to the YF-12? While we're talking about how hard it would be make a successor to the MiG-31, it seems like the americans developed an interceptor with  superior performance and lower RCS than the MiG-31, the YF-12.

dude what RCS are you talking about? in 60-70 STEALTH was only a concept in heads of Soviet physicists not in the USA.

BTW when your plane is heats up to more then 300 Celsius? you're glowing like a big torch for IRST sensors.

The only reason it was canceled was hubris that the continental US is inaccessible to soviet aircraft, it being a defensive aircraft while the USAF was an offensive neocolonialist force, and because americans didn't have Hypersonic missiles and ASAT missiles which it could use.

i doubt that, it sounds like US had hypersonic tech but chosen not to weaponize that      
They didn't do this for the last 20 years.  Russians already combat used in Ukraine to destroy US weapons storage

The YF-12 can reach mach 3.3, while the MiG-31 2.8. It had better energy retention with the delta wings too. Its only disadvantage over the MiG-31 was slightly lower payload and not enough space for a large radome.

from which sources ? Ma can be 340 m/s till 294m/s  . As for km/h spees

YF - 12  never exceeded 3660 km/h and Mig 31 BM flies 3400 km/h , so again whos faster? :d

I never read about YF flying more tnan 24km  Mig 31 flies ~ 22km but dynamis is 30km.

Can't the russians learn from the lessons of it and put into service a similarly designed aircraft, with the same ramjet/turbojet hybrid engines, which the americans managed to build in the dozens even in the 70s? This should be completely doable as long as theres money. A delta winged mach 3.3-3.5 interceptor can have L-Band radars installed on its leading edges too.

Why Russians shall learn form someone who is not better in  aerodynamics then they are? Americans built such an advanced in Hollywood for sure. Yet cannot  repeat this in reality after 50 years right?

When US SR-71s flew over flights to snoop they were tracked from takeoff to landing... their near vertical climbs on takeoffs together with their flight speed meant the enemy knew exactly what was coming, and with those aircraft speed was absolutely everything... flying at full speed an SR-71 has a turning radius so big it can't pull a 180 degree turn and remain inside the state of California...

Its long forward fuselage creates problems at higher altitudes where the long neck does not create enough lift to support the weight and essentially the nose of the aircraft would stall leading to the airplane descending... it holds speed records but no altitude records AFAIK.

The flight speed of the MiG-31 and MiG-25 were engine limited because they both have the fastest operating turbojets.

Burt Monroe... a kiwi who modified an Indian motorbike to run at very high speed found conventional tires deform and collapse at very high speeds so they have to be modified because the rotational forces on the tires at top speed are enormous and not something conventional tires were designed to tolerate.

Jet engines are the same and the rotational speed of the blades inside a jet engine as it travels at mach 2.8 plus create enormous forces on the blades that damage them beyond repair.

The jet engines in the SR-71 idle at top speed with bypass air getting fuel injected directly into the airflow essentially operating as a ramjet.

Clever design but not exactly practical because the outer skin formed the fuel tanks and when cold on the ground the gaps between panels you could get your finger into so when it was on the ground fuel pissed out all over the place... it got airborne and refuelled immediately and then climbed and accelerated as fast as it could to seal off the fuel tanks.

This required a very special fuel with a very high flashpoint so it didn't burst into flames on the ground.

When it finished its flight it had to do circuits of the airfield at low speed to cool down to avoid injuring the ground crew when it landed.

Idolised in the west... it wasn't any safer than the MiG-25 in the recon role... ie a MiG-23/F-4 Phantom probably couldn't get either, while a MiG-29/Su-27 or F-15 or F-14 would.

MiG-25s would eat SR-71s for breakfast... with their IRST they can detect SR-71s at 120 miles or more and a head shot with an R-40T or R-40TD and the SR-71 was dead meat.

S-300s and even S-200s would probably also bring it down because it was fast enough to be expensive but not fast enough to be safe... most of its work was against third world countries or flying in international airspace along borders looking into the territory it was supposed to be observing.

The special operation in Ukraine will move a lot. Russia needs capacity (people and materials) for other programs.

- SU-57
- SU-75
- SU-35
- SU-30SM2
-MIG-35/MIG-29MK2
- MIG X (one engine)
- SU-25M4 or completely new production (it is the most important aircraft, especially in the war)
- IL-76 Mass production increase
-TU-214 with PD14M (MC-21 will become nothing before 2030)

The MIG-31BM has so much potential, it can be modernized. Drone operator, mini awacs etc.
12x anti -drone rakente, etc.

It doesn't need MIG-41. What it takes are further upgrades/updates for the MIG-31BM. More radar range, better radar against drones, link to TOR and Panzir, etc. and more IR Range.

Save money and Manpower save and more further upgrades!

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
The MIG-31BM has so much potential, it can be modernized. Drone operator, mini awacs etc.
12x anti -drone rakente, etc.

It doesn't need MIG-41. What it takes are further upgrades/updates for the MIG-31BM. More radar range, better radar against drones, link to TOR and Panzir, etc. and more IR Range.

Save money and Manpower save and more further upgrades!

I respectfully disagree. MiG 41 is needs even more then before. MiG 31 is great fighter yes has limitations and it was designed almost a half century ago. Now tasks for an interceptor changed. Or I shall say a stratospheric prompt delivery platform.


The platform to deliver fast hypersonic missiles like ASAT or anti CSG or AA so kill any danger approaching to Russia with missiles or microvalve weapons or blind satellites. Russian MoD/industry reps in interviews mentioned many times "flying in near cosmos", I believe not without the reason.

I think the MiG-41 is needed now more than ever... its higher speed and its improved radar and avionics will expand the number of threats it can deal with and its longer range together with the higher speed will allow it to deal with targets further away from friendly forces.

The iskander from the ground flies at mach 7 or so and can reach targets 500km away but burns up energy manouvering to evade interceptors on its way to the target.

An air launched version the Kinzhal benefits from being launched in flight at about mach 2.5 and probably 18km altitude.... this means instead of using energy to start moving and get airborne and climb through the thickest part of the atmosphere the rocket fuel is used to accelerate the missile to higher speeds and higher altitudes meaning it can fly at mach 9 and hit targets 2,000km away.

Flying at mach 4.2 the very same missile should be able to go even faster and climb higher and therefore go further... without any modification.

A faster higher flying longer ranged plane extends the performance of existing weapons and makes future weapons even better.

The MiG-31 wont suddenly become rendered useless, it will continue to operate in places were it makes sense to operate it where the extra speed and range of the MiG-41 don't matter...

Making MiG-41s for the PVO aerospace defence forces would free up MiG-31s to be used near the front lines for shooting down enemy AWACS and JSTARS and even inflight refuelling aircraft or transport planes at extreme range.

The new systems and equipment can be tested in the MiG-31s and if successful and an improvement they could be operationally deployed to improve the performance of the fleet.

The conflict in the Ukraine proved the importance of artillery and CAS aircraft and attack helicopters and also proved armour and helicopters are not dead on the modern battlefield.

Further experience operating with and against drones will also be valuable experience.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:...The MIG-31BM has so much potential, it can be modernized. Drone operator, mini awacs etc.
12x anti -drone rakente, etc.

It doesn't need MIG-41....

MiG-31 is no longer in production

That's all there is to be said about that