PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

Su proposed then not 37 (this evolved to Su-35) but Su-47 Berkut AFAIK.

S-37, not Su-37, which for a while was the first Su-35 (Su-27M) with thrust vectoring engines.

S-37 us the Su-47 Berkut.

But yes Su-57 was born much later nonetheless idea of stealth fighter was end of 70s...

Actually the idea of a stealth fighter predates the cold war... there was a Soviet company that developed and built an aircraft completely made of transparent material like glass... my understanding was that it was very effective at first but over time cracks formed and ruined the effect.

Failing to see such a jump in the only credible version of MiG-41 that could start detailed development now.

Well a change in propulsion to double the speed, plus completely new design optimised for long range high speed flight... and no doubt their new photonic radar will likely be part of the package too.

Not to mention the opportunity to take advantage of new ideas... wing mounted long wave radar antenna to detect stealth aircraft is just one example...

GarryB wrote:
I still think it would be cheaper and easier to use a missile with what ever propulsion you put on a MiG-41 to get it to fly in space.

Put it this way: a space interceptor could handle much more intense attacks than the one you refer. That would be the advantage

GarryB wrote:
The Russian combination of a turbofan and a ramjet, plus the heat resistance technology to operate at such speeds will be the basis for the next step of hypersonics... but an order of magnitude cheaper and easier because the temperatures will be lower and ramjets are mature technologies unlike scramjets.

Then you are developing a technology that was abandoned by the SR-71 long time ago and does not apply to scramjets... how is that the basis for hypersonics? Sorry but I am understanding it quite weird

GarryB wrote:
Just like the Blackjack and Backfire are much cheaper and more affordable than if they had tried to make them mach 3 bombers instead of mach 2.

Exactly. Mach 2 instead of 3 is cheap, from 3 M onwards it gets tricky it seems

GarryB wrote:
Hell it might have a flight range of 10,000km at super cruising mach 1.8 or 2... that would be good enough for rounding up cruise missiles...

Oh my god GarryB, how the fuck is the plane going to have 10,000 km range at 2 M? You have stretched that too much man

GarryB wrote:

What are the dangers you are referring?

Well a conventional aircraft like a MiG-31 has two big engines at the back to push it forwards and lots of control surfaces that redirect the airflow over them to exert force to yaw and roll and otherwise manouver...

Ok I see. Of course you would need rockets instead of aerodynamic surfaces. Russians are quite apt at TVC nozzles, that would help also.

GarryB wrote:

That is what they say AFTER the Tu-160 was restarted... in the beginning it was planed to replace also the Tu-160!

...It was going to be too expensive to restart the Blackjacks and the force of 15 was not large enough to be viable.

Personally I am happy with the result... it is the best for Russia.

It was going to be too expensive until they realized how expensive the alternative would be and what a beast bomber they already had developed.

What I meant is that they were all convinced they wanted the PAK-DA to do everything until they discussed deeper the requirements and saw they needed a supersonic missile carrier and that it was already available. The case with the Tu-160 and MiG-31 has some similarities to me, because the MiG-31 is still in a category of its own as the Tu-160 and therefore deserves more efforts to modernise it IMHO.

Also the collage of requirements we read about point out to a early stage of conceptual development of the MiG-41 rather than an imminent development.

GarryB wrote:
The MiG-31 is best in its class... just look at the little picture below my username... but they can now do better, and would benefit from doing that...

It will be a real Firefox...

Hahaha, indeed!
BTW that one was also originally going to be Mach 4 or 5 right?

GarryB wrote:
If you can get away with heat resistant aluminium then you get strength and heat resistance, but also low cost... and ease of maintenance... talk to the US about the cost of operating the SR-71 an all titanium aircraft...

Being able to use a turbofan and ramjet combination means you don't need exotic risky technologies... they might make a PD engine too so they have some options, but a standard engine and ramjet combination should be good enough for Mach 4.2.

Cheap and simple... if they wanted mach 5 then they might need scramjets and it would take 5 years longer and cost 10 times more... making it useless for the purpose of defending russia...

this way they get a good plane cheaper and faster and later they can upgrade it with newer engine designs.

It will be the very first 4 M aircraft and it is supposed to be used in the hundreds... it would be risky technology already with that speed!

GarryB wrote:
Put it on the nose of a rocket to test it... they tested ramjet engines by sticking one on the nose of an SA-5 SAM in place of the warhead in the 1990s... after it accelerated to mach 5 or so under its own rocket power, the scramjet engine lit up and accelerated the entire missile (minus the solid rocket boosters which fall away when used up) from mach 5 to mach 6....

Yes, there is always a way. But remember this is going to be a huge plane, do you want to test a model instead of the real one... at some point the shortcuts work no more

GarryB wrote:
Well actually no, it did force them to upgrade the fleet of MiG-25s to minimise the information collected, but when Belenko defected they were already working on the MiG-31...

Ok I see, thanks

GarryB wrote:
I would say this programme will be funded by the Aerospace defence forces...

You mean apart form the air force? The aerospace defence forces are not tasked with missiles and radars?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
you dont k ow where to stop, dont you?

Aaalways excuses

[quote]

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I think that ecology si not most important here. BTW didn't this type of engine already consist from turbo compressor + ramjet + rocket engine? The idea behind is to have one aircraft able to reach orbit and back form horizontal start... Ramjet switches to rocket only when sped Ma >5 and altitude 29km...

Ecology? No, I mean without the liquid hydrogen the heat exchanger cannot cool the incoming air and you cannot get a functioning air-breathing engine at that speed. It is a very interesting approach but as said with a fuel for spaceships not for planes. I see it as an issue but maybe I am wrong...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I emphasize again that a space based interceptor will be far more effective since it will shoot missiles that only get faster the farther they travel(unlike atmosphere lanched ones) because they're assisted by gravity because they're falling. This makes it impossible for any atmospheric aircraft to evade that missile by using afterburner.

Since the plane will be already very fast on near space and the missile accelerates even faster, it is highly unlikely that the terminal velocity allowed by the atmosphere is higher than those already very high values. This terminal speed depends on the height and drag of the missile logically but g is not going to keep accelerating it forever

There is one aspect I overlooked when discussing the new interceptor. Taking a look at the speed of the main AAM of the USAF, the AIM-120, a top speed of no more than 4 M is quoted (Deagel, Wiki). Meteor apparently "over" 4M but unclear by how much. Therefore an aircraft capable of speeds in that ballpark could essentially engage and disengage at will and be even more difficult to counter by the enemy AD fighters than the already very dangerous MiG-31. Engagement windows of air launched missiles would essentially disappear and leave such fast aircraft operating at will unless the SAM coverage was extremely dense.

There are some episodes from the Gulf War that illustrates the difficulty of dealing with high-speed targets (this is just the result of a very brief search, a lot of information is available):

January 17-1991 F/A-18C Hornet from the carrier USS Saratoga "Captain Michael Scott Speicher" was shot down on the first night of the war by Iraqi MiG-25PDS flown by Lt. Zuhair Dawood of the 84th squadron of the IrAF,fired an R-40TD missile.The missile impacted Scott Speicher's jet head on when he was travelling Mach 0.92. The impact sent the aircraft spiraling downwards and most people believe Speicher died on the impact of the missile.

In another incident, an Iraqi MiG-25PD, after eluding eight U.S. Air Force F-15s, fired three missiles at General Dynamics EF-111A Raven electronic warfare aircraft, forcing them to abort their mission and leave attacking aircraft without electronic jamming support.

In yet another incident, two MiG-25s approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15s), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15s joined the pursuit, and a total of 10 air-to-air missiles were fired at the MiG-25s, although none reached them. According to the same sources, at least one F-111 was also forced to abort its mission by a MiG-25 on the first 24 hours of hostilities

http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=853

All this was done virtually by single planes, with totally outdated missiles, amidst complete confusion, lack of planning and command and under overwhelming US air superiority. One can only imagine what a mere two squadrons of well commanded, modern interceptors with modern missiles and proper support would have made...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:but isnt it the speed of  missile goes on top of speed of platform?

I don't think so Gunship, the air resistance will stop the missile until the drag equals its thrust. But of course if the carrier is very fast then the missile will cover more distance with the same rocket burning time because it is flying very fast from the very beginning.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Well sounds like yet another reason for speed. However I think that ceiling and speed is first of all  about dashing to targets which travel with very high speed or you need meet them as far a possible from your borders . Just my "IMHO"

My "IMHO" is that it is more decisive in order to outrun missiles. The speed of the aircraft is one of the factors contributing to the early interception of a threat, being the sum of others of similar relative weight. So the increase from ca. 3 M to ca. 4 M is not that huge and probably cannot reduce the time of intercept in more than a 10-20%, depending of course on the distance to the target. Being the future threats hypersonic, an increase between 3 M and 4 M doesn't seem critical to me and has a cost of opportunity because causes the air force to procure a plane with limited capabilities only some years before the advent of advanced propulsion that could be really significant to tackle fundamentally different levels of threat, so I was struggling to see the convenience from that perspective. But in order to engage and disengage air defence fighters and escorts, if you have the same speed than their AAMs, you essentially can operate unharmed by them... that would be literally like a wrecking ball falling on the force structure constructed by enemy air forces, forcing on them a much more defensive posture and the need to develop and procure great amounts of new missiles adapted to the capacities of the new threat. On the Russian side the R-37 is already 6 M so future-proof in that regard

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Perhaps you're correct. Newtonian approximation says for sure: velocities add up. My question was is 4Ma missile velocity relative to fighter or to earth observer? Due to drag perhaps tho 4Ma is max speed (so actually +2Ma relative to fighter...)

When the missile is launched its relative speed to the carrier is zero. Then the engine starts propelling it faster until the drag and thrust are equal. No additional propelling force being exerted apart from the rocket engine, therefore no higher max speed. Of course much faster acceleration, higher average speed during rocket burning time and hence longer range. Putting it in other way, if you launch a 4 M missile from a 5 M plane it will be 5 M at the moment of launch but when it depends on its engine alone it will gradually decelerate until it reaches 4 M.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Currently MiG-31 max flies  with  >3,000km/h (perhaps after modernization 3,400km/h) then new one is to up 5000km/h  in 30mins this gives 1000km further away from Russian borders. You fly to stop massive cruise missiles attack or better to shoot down B2 or B21. All bombers next 40 years or so will be subsonic. Most of drones too. Rafale or F-18, and F-35 stay well till 2040. I dotn think so that 5000km/h is that bad. There will be no "fundamentally new" propulsion. ramjets/scram-jets are nothing fundamentally new to my knowledge.

justmy "IMHO"

I guess it can all be reduced to the following: if the threats are not faster than before, why should the interceptor be faster???

But lets go to your numbers. For MiG-31 2,83 M and the supposed 4 M MiG-41 the number (considering that the speed of sound is constant to a great extent between 10000 and 30000 m and therefore should apply roughly the same to both planes) would be ca. 600 km. It would be an heroic move by the MiG-31 pilot, that would have needed to eject due to low fuel midway (range ca. 1500 km @ 2,35 M, much shorter at max speed). As for the MiG-41, physics say that the faster you fly the more fuel you burn, so I could imagine its range at max speed being even shorter than that of the MiG-31...

I think a really dangerous attack to Russia would rather need CMs launched close to its territory, it is the best way they could succeed, so interception times would be much shorter and the difference between interceptor aircraft smaller because the actual flying time weights less in the whole interception time (considering detection by IAD, coordination and mission assignment, take-off, targeting, missile flight etc.). In order to even reduce flight time, it would have a bigger impact to improve territorial coverage of important targets by reactivating MiG-31 squadrons with planes from reserve (apparently happening) than to develop a new plane.

As for the propulsion systems, I am referring mainly to scramjets, based or not in PDEs. This would be radically new and potentially capable as discussed in the thread of changing warfare, depending on the speeds and operational altitudes enabled.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
thanks for explaining basics of Newtonian mechanics, form course grade 6      

Be my guest! It got pretty basic but that is due to the nature of the question you know...  

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
PGS missiles? surely 600kmfurther from border doesnt cunt?

Was only answering your argumentation as stated in your post:

All bombers next 40 years or so will be subsonic. Most of drones too. Rafale or F-18, and F-35 stay well till 2040.

Against PGS you will not have so much time. Faster weapons and reaction times will be needed.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
and who told you that  MiG-41 will have same size/fuel tanks/engines efficiency?

Nobody, but the MiG-31 is already seriously big and has been optimized to have a remarkable supersonic range, going further at even higher speeds would need a huge plane, or breakthrough in propulsion (not really feasible in turbojets) or somehow an even bigger fuel fraction. But it remains to be seen, that is why I didn't make an statement but just gave an opinion...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I am sure that they neither considered it in general staff not even are aware against it and no SWOT was used      

Well, it seems they are aware since they are apparently reactivating units:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1812p550-mig-31bm-interceptor-news#225952

130 MiG-31 in storage allow creating several more aviation units in case of availability of financing. In the Far East, it is planned to restore the 530th Fighter Regiment in Chuguevka. Since 1975, the regiment flew on the MiG-25, and since 1988 - on the MiG-31. It was liquidated in 2009, and the squadron of serviceable MiG-31s ​​was redeployed to the Tsentralnaya Uglovaya airfield and included in the part of the part based there. The airfield of Chuguevka is periodically used. For example, on a satellite image from June 2016, it detects 11 MiG-31. Probably, they were transferred here for the time of exercises from the airfield Central Corner. As part of the military construction in the Arctic, Russia announced the creation of new airfields for the MiG-31 in Tiksi and Anadyr, but the work there has not yet begun.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
sounds good, the question is if MiG-41 is just deep MiG-31 modernization or totally new airframe?

Exactly my doubt. I am starting to think the former is the realistic expectation, while the MiG guys seem to be aiming for more. They say they are working on it but there is simply nothing clear, either in terms of requirements, propulsion or even dates that sounds even moderately real. Do not know what they are on when they speak about getting all those lasers, hypersonics in near space and 5G stealth in short term  

On the other hand, MiG-31 apparently was designed with higher speeds in mind and limited only by the engines. If that was actually the case then it would be much easier to "create" the MiG-41 pretty much the same way the MiG-35 was... with a change of name and a deep update. And it would make more sense I would say, since no one is even coming close yet to match the -31. Better to have many more and well deployed, now they are also doubling as missile carriers, by using a relatively simple and cheap design. I see no use of all this VLO BS for an interceptor flying a 3 M or more...

miketheterrible wrote:MiG-31 is a follow up of the MiG-25.  Strengthened hull, better engines, better everything else.  I see no issues with maybe making the MiG-41 the same design but using newer composite materials, modified engines for much higher efficiency and speed (or at least supercruising), better radar (that one should be rather easy since the MiG-31 can take quite the heavy radar, and with newer APU it should be able to have a radar much greater than Irbis-E in terms of raw performance), etc.

Actually using technologies developed for PAK-FA in the update would already yield very big gains.

An upsized version of izd. 30 (LO considerations aside) should reach the AB values of the D30-F6 dry with ease and due to newer materials should allow higher temperatures and hence speed. I am disregarding intake design and performance at altitude, but theoretically the above would mean to fly above 2.5 M dry, which would make the aircraft even more powerful for covering big distances and maybe surpass 3 M max speed.

A modern AESA radar with the diameter of the Zaslon would be a real monster indeed...

@Gunship:

yeah, that is what I said: "unless they have the blueprints in the drawer there is no way they can develop in the time they say"

So there you have it, they had the blueprints already and were just waiting for an excuse to send them to the factory

Now seriously, all those Death Star projects are very nice but are not going to happen any time soon.

I am intrigued with this though:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
drone section please but also couuld be kind of VSTOL fighter

No, f*ck, it is a Chinese UCAV with some looks of being seriously fast. Maybe would be good to keep an eye on it as a future interceptor design

BTW, this is what our friend Tarasenko will present soon:



You like it? Is a MiG-41!