5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

Austin wrote:Russian company working on a lightweight stealth fighter to replace the Mig-29 and Mig35

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/russian-company-working-on-lightweight.html

Russia’s RSK-MiG is working on a new lightweight fifth-generation stealth fighter to replace the Mikoyan MiG-29 and MiG-35 Fulcrum series fighters.

Called the Liogkiy Mnogofunktsionalniy Frontovoi Samolyet (LMFS)—or Light Multi-Function Frontal Aircraft in English—United Aircraft Corporation is developing the new aircraft out of its own funds, reports aviation journalist Piotr Butowski in the French-language trade journal Air and Cosmos.

The LMFS will use a canard configuration reminiscent of the now-defunct Mikoyan Project 1.44 design, which was developed in the late 1980s as the Soviet Union’s answer to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

The aircraft will likely have an empty weight of roughly 33,000lbs and a maximum takeoff weight of 55,000lbs. The aircraft will be equipped with internal weapons bays and advanced avionics—assuming it ever reaches fruition.

As currently envisioned, the new fighter will be equipped with a pair of the Klimov VK-10M afterburning turbofans—which are advanced derivatives of the MiG-29-series’ RD-33 powerplant—rated at 22,000lb thrust each. That should enable the aircraft to reach speeds of between Mach 1.8 and Mach 2.0 with a range of 2485 miles when configured with external droptanks.

It is possible that Mikoyan may revise the design into a single-engine configuration if the PAK-FA’s next-generation izdeliye 30 engines reach a suitable level of maturity in time. There are few details available about the izdeliye 30 engines, but the new powerplant is expected to deliver 24,054lbs dry thrust and 39,566lbs of afterburning thrust.

The picture is disturbing, because it's only fanart or a rough concept. I doubt LMFS will look like this. But LMFS is the next correct step into the future!

I say they should wait for I-30 engine, go for single engine config and hit two birds with one stone and at 50% cost.

I disagree.

A single engine fighter might be slightly cheaper to operate and maintain, but a twin engine means better manouver capability with TVC engine nozzles and twin engine safety.

The extra volume with two engines means more internal space for internal weapons and much better thrust margin.

Two 12 ton thrust engines will be rather better than one 16 ton thrust engine and will allow for much higher loaded operational weights.

Two engines add redundancy to resist battle damage or accidents.

Sukhoi traditionally work with Saturn, while MiG traditionally work with Klimov... that is not likely to change any time soon.

I think a single engined PAK FA could be used as the basis for a drone... just as a one engined MiG-LFS could also be the basis of a drone... they could operate with the fighters with little more than fuel and extra missiles as a support aircraft to engage enemy air forces in huge numbers...

Isos wrote:.............

Manouvrability with one engine can be improved with a better aerodynamic design. Western Aircrafts have decent manouvrability even if their engines are very close, like if they had just one. It's not really an issue for mig.

Exactly.

If they want two engine version they already have T-50.

With single engine they can unify both types to use I-30 and save huge amount of time and money down the road.

And let's not forget that light fighter will have different role than T-50. T-50 will be heavy hitter. Light fighter will be doing simpler dirty work mostly on ground targets and act as support for bigger birds.

And would more practical for use on any aircraft carriers that might get built later.

Manouvrability with one engine can be improved with a better aerodynamic design. Western Aircrafts have decent manouvrability even if their engines are very close, like if they had just one. It's not really an issue for mig.

You misunderstand.

With engines close together you get a good roll rate, but only in normal flight.

In normal forward flight the air is flowing over your conventional control surfaces... wings and tail.

If you have to do a sudden turn with a high angle of attack then the airflow is no longer attached to your wing and tail so any attempt to turn really hard can stall the aircraft... once the aircraft is in a stall the control surfaces have no effect because the air is no longer flowing over the control surfaces.

Being able to manouver the aircraft just using engine angle and thrust or TVC means you can keep your nose pointed where you want to for as long as you want to... a single engined aircraft or an aircraft with both engines together is limited in that respect. An aircraft with two engines widely separated has what is called care free manouver capability... the pilot can raise or lower the nose of the aircraft and can also move it left or right or indeed roll left or right as needed.

A pilot of a single engined aircraft even with TVC cannot roll in super stalls.

With single engine they can unify both types to use I-30 and save huge amount of time and money down the road.

I rather doubt having one type of engine would save any money at all.

Engine families with different power ratings are much more valuable than having just one type in different number clusters.

And let's not forget that light fighter will have different role than T-50. T-50 will be heavy hitter. Light fighter will be doing simpler dirty work mostly on ground targets and act as support for bigger birds.

I would expect a lighter fighter would end up being the light bomb truck fighter bomber numbers aircraft. Lots of CAS type missions and support missions, with short range interception duties included.

And would more practical for use on any aircraft carriers that might get built later.

A carrier has limited space and can carry a limited number of air frames... sometimes a bigger heavier longer ranged more capable aircraft is better.

Certainly the MiG-29K2 is better than the Su-33 but then if the Su-33 had been upgraded to Su-30KUB then I would not be so quick to pick the MiG.

At the end of the day even the Yak-130 has two engines and if it is going to be used as a naval fighter bomber then it will almost certainly also have two engines too.

GarryB wrote:

Manouvrability with one engine can be improved with a better aerodynamic design. Western Aircrafts have decent manouvrability even if their engines are very close, like if they had just one. It's not really an issue for mig.

You misunderstand.

With engines close together you get a good roll rate, but only in normal flight.

In normal forward flight the air is flowing over your conventional control surfaces... wings and tail.

If you have to do a sudden turn with a high angle of attack then the airflow is no longer attached to your wing and tail so any attempt to turn really hard can stall the aircraft... once the aircraft is in a stall the control surfaces have no effect because the air is no longer flowing over the control surfaces.

Being able to manouver the aircraft just using engine angle and thrust or TVC means you can keep your nose pointed where you want to for as long as you want to... a single engined aircraft or an aircraft with both engines together is limited in that respect. An aircraft with two engines widely separated has what is called care free manouver capability... the pilot can raise or lower the nose of the aircraft and can also move it left or right or indeed roll left or right as needed.

A pilot of a single engined aircraft even with TVC cannot roll in super stalls.

With single engine they can unify both types to use I-30 and save huge amount of time and money down the road.

I rather doubt having one type of engine would save any money at all.

Engine families with different power ratings are much more valuable than having just one type in different number clusters.

And let's not forget that light fighter will have different role than T-50. T-50 will be heavy hitter. Light fighter will be doing simpler dirty work mostly on ground targets and act as support for bigger birds.

I would expect a lighter fighter would end up being the light bomb truck fighter bomber numbers aircraft. Lots of CAS type missions and support missions, with short range interception duties included.

And would more practical for use on any aircraft carriers that might get built later.

A carrier has limited space and can carry a limited number of air frames... sometimes a bigger heavier longer ranged more capable aircraft is better.

Certainly the MiG-29K2 is better than the Su-33 but then if the Su-33 had been upgraded to Su-30KUB then I would not be so quick to pick the MiG.

At the end of the day even the Yak-130 has two engines and if it is going to be used as a naval fighter bomber then it will almost certainly also have two engines too.

I have given another look to the published sketch and I have cleared a little my mind up.
Imho, it can actually work : unlike the Flanker's one, MiG-29 configuration is not a good starting point for a fifth generation plane given that being its engine pods too small and too close one to the other, most of its payload had to be put on wings, a real no go for a stealth plane.
So it's necessary to depart from it and the best solution would be to distance the two pods in order to leave between them a space similar to the one on the T-50 or even larger (going Hellduck's way, why not?) between and place a pair of bombs bay there.
Given than the airplane has to be smaller and lighter anyway the delta configuration is so the only way to get good flying characteristics and spare weight at the same time.

The single engine alternative doesn't seems to me attractive at all instead, as it would require to get back to a conventional fuselage + the bombs bays at the sides to add extra drag...

What I hope to find different from the said sketch is instead the rudders and the canards, to be replaced by T-50 like solutions.

unlike the Flanker's one, MiG-29 configuration is not a good starting point for a fifth generation plane given that being its engine pods too small and too close one to the other, most of its payload had to be put on wings, a real no go for a stealth plane.

I agree, but for different roles and different phases of conflict the light 5th gen fighter the needs and expectations will be different.

For WWIII, the main use... but also the least likely to actually be realised role you will start out trying to blunt a full scale attack... in that role where stealth is important all weapons will be internal and limited but then no fighter in history has gone into combat with 12 plus missiles and needed to use all of them.

If the threat is serious then external carriage of AAMs just to deal with the number of threats would be an acceptable compromise on stealth performance.

For later in the conflict... ie phase two or three, the light 5th gen fighter will be a fighter bomber so external stores will be rather more acceptable and much heavier loads can be carried.

For regional conflicts you again can pretty much divide the roles into stealthy and non stealthy... bearing in mind that with such a small aircraft the stealth will only be effective against high frequency systems.

Much of the time the light fighters will be light bomb trucks hitting point targets of opportunity... more serious targets like bridges or HQs will be attacked with Su-34 and PAK FA and even PAK DA type aircraft or cruise missiles or unmanned drones.

A simple light fighter with the capacity to carry 6-8 AAMs internally is really all you need... the fact that you will have numbers of them will compensate for the lack of 14-16 missile pylons per aircraft...

What I hope to find different from the said sketch is instead the rudders and the canards, to be replaced by T-50 like solutions.

I agree fully with this... those canards would interfere with the pilots view and offer something near the front of the aircraft that moves in combat that could attract the vision of the enemy. Tail mounted horizontal control surfaces and TVC engine nozzles is already mature and mastered and vastly superior to conventional only controls.

Canards will be used so the air will still flow over control surfaces like on Rafale which is more manouvrable than the Typhoon, depend where you put them.

The MiG-29 uses a lifting body design... the leading edge root extensions generate vortexes of energised air that allow the vertical tail surfaces to stabilise the aircrafts flight even at high angles of attack.

Putting canards there would ruin that effect and lower performance... not improve it.

Plus with the OLS and R-74 it doesn't need to point the noise at the target. So there is no need for increasing cost with TVC or another engine.

The first two seconds of a missiles flight is critical... it is the part of its flight when it has the most thrust and has to accelerate through the sound barrier. If you have the missile pointing directly at its target it will accelerate in a straight line to maximum speed and allow it to have maximum range and energy. If the missile has to turn hard at launch much of the energy is wasted and speed and range will be dramatically reduced.

Stalling the aircraft and pointing the missile directly at a target... say 90 degrees of flight track to fire a missile will cut the normal flight speed from the missile, but its acceleration will be normal and its achieved flight speed will be high and its ability to then turn with the target if it tries to evade the missile will be maximum.

If you just fire off the rail and the first thing the missile has to do is a hard 90 degree turn it will not accelerate to anything like max speed and by the time it has turned to point at the enemy target aircraft the enemy pilot can turn so that the missile keeps needing to turn hard in the same direction and burn off more energy... low energy missiles are much easier to evade...

Its direct competitors will be F-35 and J-31 which are not known to be good doghfiters ... The stealth and new avionics will assure it to have first look down/shoot down over F-15/16/18 series and in dogfight none of them would be better if it's carrying R-73 and OLS. So what your saying is not useless but overkill.

What I am saying is that missiles can be defeated... a decent DIRCMS system should be able to defeat optically guided missiles and an enormous AESA radar in the nose of most new fighters will be able to fry any ARH guided missiles... so that leaves guns... are you still sure you want one engine and high off boresight missiles because there is no such thing as high off boresight cannon except on helicopter gunships.

If you think OLS and R-73s and R-74s will make dogfighting obsolete then why not have an AN-124... you could fit an enormous AESA front and back and in the cargo bay have hundreds or thousands of R-74s and R-77s and R-37Ms and even S-500s ready to launch. Not cheap to operate but you would only need two or three per military district...

Personally I think a semi stealthy twin engined light fighter with widely separated engines makes rather more sense... Enlarged engine nacelles can contain internally mounted missile launch positions where a door opens and a missile is pushed out with a catapult... as with the R-77 and R-37 missile types... perhaps even a few upward launching launchers...

Apparently a deal has been done with UAE to joint develop this

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4037870

Yandex Translate wrote:ABU DHABI, 20 Feb. /TASS/. Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) together will develop a light fighter of the fifth generation. This was announced by the Minister of industry and trade of Russia Denis Manturov.
"Today we signed an agreement on development of industrial cooperation in the field of military-technical products. This gives you the opportunity to develop a project for a light fifth-generation fighter, which will be developed with the participation of the United Arab Emirates," - said Manturov at the 13th international exhibition of arms IDEX 2017.
In turn, the head of the United aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar told TASS that the development of the aircraft is at the initial stage.
"The joint development of a light fighter fifth generation with the UAE is at an early stage. We are currently preparing our proposal to the UAE side. We believe that the car will be successful. Ready to present to our colleagues our development," he said.
According to him, the Russian side in the project will participate KLA as the parent organization, as well as "Dry" with their experiences on the fifth-generation fighter and MiG with experience in single-engine aircraft.
Slyusar said that the concept of the new plane yet to be determined. "We have not yet defined the concept of a light fighter fifth generation. Still haven't figured out, whether it is a single-engine or twin-engine. The signed agreement allows us to begin this work," - said the head of the KLA.
At the same time, as the head of Rostec Sergey Chemezov, a light fighter of the fifth generation will be created based on the MiG-29.
"Based on the MiG-29 will create a more modern fifth generation aircraft," he said.
"Work on this plane, I think, will start next year, they will take seven or eight years," - said the head of Rostec.

Based on MiG-29 so maybe not much more than a MiG-35 redo for more composites/reduced RCS?
But they do say not decided whether single or twin engine so that implies more than a slight warm over.

UAE seems like a very odd partner
I guess if UAE is providing a bunch of funds up front & MiG/Russia are careful what info they actually give to UAE (ie assume that US will get their hands on it & will try to disrupt the program)

GarryB wrote:

I agree, but for different roles and different phases of conflict the light 5th gen fighter the needs and expectations will be different.

For WWIII, the main use... but also the least likely to actually be realised role you will start out trying to blunt a full scale attack... in that role where stealth is important all weapons will be internal and limited but then no fighter in history has gone into combat with 12 plus missiles and needed to use all of them.

If the threat is serious then external carriage of AAMs just to deal with the number of threats would be an acceptable compromise on stealth performance.

For later in the conflict... ie phase two or three, the light 5th gen fighter will be a fighter bomber so external stores will be rather more acceptable and much heavier loads can be carried.

For regional conflicts you again can pretty much divide the roles into stealthy and non stealthy... bearing in mind that with such a small aircraft the stealth will only be effective against high frequency systems.

Much of the time the light fighters will be light bomb trucks hitting point targets of opportunity... more serious targets like bridges or HQs will be attacked with Su-34 and PAK FA and even PAK DA type aircraft or cruise missiles or unmanned drones.

A simple light fighter with the capacity to carry 6-8 AAMs internally is really all you need... the fact that you will have numbers of them will compensate for the lack of 14-16 missile pylons per aircraft...

I agree fully with this... those canards would interfere with the pilots view and offer something near the front of the aircraft that moves in combat that could attract the vision of the enemy.  Tail mounted horizontal control surfaces and TVC engine nozzles is already mature and mastered and vastly superior to conventional only controls.

Personally I think a semi stealthy twin engined light fighter with widely separated engines makes rather more sense... Enlarged engine nacelles can contain internally mounted missile launch positions where a door opens and a missile is pushed out with a catapult... as with the R-77 and R-37 missile types... perhaps even a few upward launching launchers...

Thank you for reply.
I would dare to say that in the very end we agree about the final outcome.
A delta wing to save weight with getting rid of tail assembly but with the russian typical solution of blended wing/body and engine pods and central tunnel to retain the possibility to get quite large bombs bay and internally carried fuel with the lowest possible induced drag.
About the carried load you are even a little too conservative as in the case that the bombs bay would turn out to be of comparable size with the ones of PAK-FA (perfectly possible if the two engine pods, although comparatively smaller are placed at the same distance one from the other than in the T-50) both the internally carried load than the total one would still turn out to be quite relevant.

In the case of the MiG-29/35 we had instead 8 pylons under the wings and one (used for centreline tank) under the fuselage, not a good starting point for turning it directly into a 5 gen design IMHO).

Pak-Fa sport instead 4 pylons under the wings, two under the engine pods for external carry, up to six in the central tunnel +two for R-73 class missiles only at the engine pods/wing junction point for a maximum load of about 7500kg.
For the light plane we are talking the ones under the wings and in the central tunnel can be considered to be feasible without not so great problems leading to a 4500/5500kg total load with more than half of it carried internally.  .

hoom wrote:.....

Based on MiG-29 so maybe not much more than a MiG-35 redo for more composites/reduced RCS?
But they do say not decided whether single or twin engine so that implies more than a slight warm over.

UAE seems like a very odd partner
I guess if UAE is providing a bunch of funds up front & MiG/Russia are careful what info they actually give to UAE (ie assume that US will get their hands on it & will try to disrupt the program)

I think what they mean when they say ''based on" is that new aircraft will be using equipment that they use or plan to add later on MiG-29/35 (radars, sensors, comms, etc...) and stock equipment currently used that does not need redesign (armaments, landing gear, pilot seats, fuel tanks...) but they will be combined with completely new airframe and maybe new engine(s).

Fact that number of engines is still up for discussion would indicate this approach.

The critical thing in my opinion is to keep the thrust low because if you use high thrust then the temptation is to make the aircraft heavier and heavier and pretty soon you have a medium weight aircraft that is no longer cheap to buy and operate...

Don't give it an enormous payload because that can have the same effect...

Set boundaries for range and speed and payload capacity and stick to it.

A light fighter does not need a 10 ton payload, it does not need a flight radius of 3,000km.

It needs a good radar a good gun, decent short and medium range air to air missiles, the ability to carry the entire range of sub 1000kg Russian and Soviet weapons.

The thrust vectoring engines and inflight refuelling it will be able to do most light jobs... for anything else there will be Su-35s and MiG-35s and PAK FAs and MiG-31s and what ever replaces the MiG-31s.... the latter could be a Tu-160MP interceptor for all we know.

Both MiG and Sukhoi have experience with light single engine fighterbombers... the MiG-15/17/21/23/27 family for MiG and Su-7/17/20/22 for Sukhoi were successful members of Frontal Aviation for decades.

GarryB wrote:The critical thing in my opinion is to keep the thrust low because if you use high thrust then the temptation is to make the aircraft heavier and heavier and pretty soon you have a medium weight aircraft that is no longer cheap to buy and operate...

Don't give it an enormous payload because that can have the same effect...

Set boundaries for range and speed and payload capacity and stick to it.

A light fighter does not need a 10 ton payload, it does not need a flight radius of 3,000km.

It needs a good radar a good gun, decent short and medium range air to air missiles, the ability to carry the entire range of sub 1000kg Russian and Soviet weapons.

The thrust vectoring engines and inflight refuelling it will be able to do most light jobs... for anything else there will be Su-35s and MiG-35s and PAK FAs and MiG-31s and what ever replaces the MiG-31s.... the latter could be a Tu-160MP interceptor for all we know.

Both MiG and Sukhoi have experience with light single engine fighterbombers... the MiG-15/17/21/23/27 family for MiG and Su-7/17/20/22 for Sukhoi were successful members of Frontal Aviation for decades.

What you said make sense but the reverse consideration also apply.
Given that's there are consistent limits of weight and dimensions into designing a light fighter, it's important to choose the best possible configuration for it.
This is even more important when we talk about a 5gen fighter with the added problem of positioning bombs bay and carrying all the fuel internally.
Going from F-16C to F-35A comported passing from an empty weight of 8500kg to one of 13000+kg, more than 50% (an F-15C actually weight less).
It possible to get better results? Yes, the Pak-fa itself is a good prove of it but this was thank to a starting structural configuration, the one it have inherited by the Flanker, absolutely better suited for the task.

Now the challenge is to design a plane that carry half of the internal fuel and half of the payload (both external, than above all, internal) cutting in the same time both the acquisition than the maintenance costs.
In my opinion the blended wing body/engine pods derived by the Flankers and the Fulcrum itself (with the proposed modification of a much wider space between the two engine pods so to allow putting bombs bay there) is still the best starting point also for this.

hoom wrote:Apparently a deal has been done with UAE to joint develop this

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4037870

Yandex Translate wrote:ABU DHABI, 20 Feb. /TASS/. Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) together will develop a light fighter of the fifth generation. This was announced by the Minister of industry and trade of Russia Denis Manturov.
"Today we signed an agreement on development of industrial cooperation in the field of military-technical products. This gives you the opportunity to develop a project for a light fifth-generation fighter, which will be developed with the participation of the United Arab Emirates," - said Manturov at the 13th international exhibition of arms IDEX 2017.
In turn, the head of the United aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar told TASS that the development of the aircraft is at the initial stage.
"The joint development of a light fighter fifth generation with the UAE is at an early stage. We are currently preparing our proposal to the UAE side. We believe that the car will be successful. Ready to present to our colleagues our development," he said.
According to him, the Russian side in the project will participate KLA as the parent organization, as well as "Dry" with their experiences on the fifth-generation fighter and MiG with experience in single-engine aircraft.
Slyusar said that the concept of the new plane yet to be determined. "We have not yet defined the concept of a light fighter fifth generation. Still haven't figured out, whether it is a single-engine or twin-engine. The signed agreement allows us to begin this work," - said the head of the KLA.
At the same time, as the head of Rostec Sergey Chemezov, a light fighter of the fifth generation will be created based on the MiG-29.
"Based on the MiG-29 will create a more modern fifth generation aircraft," he said.
"Work on this plane, I think, will start next year, they will take seven or eight years," - said the head of Rostec.

Based on MiG-29 so maybe not much more than a MiG-35 redo for more composites/reduced RCS?
But they do say not decided whether single or twin engine so that implies more than a slight warm over.

UAE seems like a very odd partner
I guess if UAE is providing a bunch of funds up front & MiG/Russia are careful what info they actually give to UAE (ie assume that US will get their hands on it & will try to disrupt the program)

well this is good ,but i thought they will joint venture with china and fc-31 , but instead  UAE is funding this. anyway this "new" mig-35 is a waste and some revision of e-721 project from pak-fa competition should be pursued with single engine. http://www.wrk.ru/forums/attachment.php?item=203654
we know that mig 1.44 mfi prorotype is still flying around doing testing.

Rmf wrote:................
we know that mig 1.44 mfi prorotype is still flying around doing testing.

It is? That would be cool to see.

Got any links or photos?

I thought that beastie only got rolled out periodically at MAKS...

What will be intersting to see is which one, between Pak Fa and LMFS, they will chose for their Aircraft carriers.

They picked the Su-33 originally because it had a performance advantage over the original MiG-29K in terms of range and weapon capacity.

They have chosen the MiG-29KR because it was already in production so it was cheaper and could get into production and service much quicker than any model Flanker.

If they make a light 5th gen fighter I rather suspect they will pick the PAK FA for carrier fighter as its extra size and weight will enable more weapons to be carried further.

With the Flanker the Su-33 had a double folded wing so despite being a much bigger aircraft the Su-33 could fit into a similar space as a folded MiG-29... so it just made sense to pick the Su-33.

India will probably want the smaller LMFS so they could put more of them on their small carrier and they already have Mig-29k so they will have experience with a Mig modele and Russia will want the Pak Fa.

I suspect India would go for a naval version of their FFGA... Unless they pick the LMFS over the Tegas I suspect there wont be a lighter option for them without introducing a new type.

Now the challenge is to design a plane that carry half of the internal fuel and half of the payload (both external, than above all, internal) cutting in the same time both the acquisition than the maintenance costs.

If they can avoid trying to make it some super plane that can defeat enemy countries on its own it should be fine.

Keep payload down and expected range down... put a good radar and use good weapons. If you need more weapons then use more than one aircraft... more range then inflight refuelling... don't try to make it a PAK FA.

In my opinion the blended wing body/engine pods derived by the Flankers and the Fulcrum itself (with the proposed modification of a much wider space between the two engine pods so to allow putting bombs bay there) is still the best starting point also for this.

I agree... but making the engine nacelles larger and putting weapon bays in their sides to allow short range AAMs to be carried there freeing up the centre bomb bays for larger ordinance would be a good thing too.

Internal weapon bays would create curved intakes which is also good for stealth.

Actually I just remembered the alternative design for the Su-25 was the Il-102 that had a big thick wing with wing mounted bomb bays... it was called archaic at the time but now it would be rather stealthy...

OminousSpudd wrote:I thought that beastie only got rolled out periodically at MAKS...

To my knowledge thats true. I am not aware of any flight testing with it.

Militarov wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:I thought that beastie only got rolled out periodically at MAKS...

To my knowledge thats true. I am not aware of any flight testing with it.

Probably as a test bed.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Militarov wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:I thought that beastie only got rolled out periodically at MAKS...

To my knowledge thats true. I am not aware of any flight testing with it.

Probably as a test bed.

They have other aircraft they use as testbeds Su-30, SU-27 and few other, even bort numbers are known. I never tho heard of that prototype flying before as testbed or anything. I mean, maybe it did, i just never heard of it.

Rmf wrote:................
we know that mig 1.44 mfi prorotype is still flying around doing testing.

No, MiG 1.44 made only two very short flights in 2000, with private money from MiG, and never again. Su-47 (S-37) is the one which has made many flights recently, especially testing the weapons bay for the T-50.

Russia’s MiG Company mulls single and twin-engine options for 5th generation warplane

More:
http://tass.com/defense/956798