5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

GunshipDemocracy wrote:+100 Light fighters are more destined for defense. Can do the same but just range is smaller. I am sure LMFS will be created. It is logical step. Not only TuAF but also navy (CVN) and export

Just a comment: if the light fighter in question is intended for export, it will need to be multi-role. Regardless of what we can thing about multi-role crap and that it goes contrary to the fighter in question being "cheap" and being "light". So it will need to have range and sensors to perform air superiority, bays big enough to be acceptable as an attack plane, fast enough to intercept... not an easy task to design such a plane!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:taking account present state of autonomous vehicles (ok for military is a step ahead but still way to go) no way you can build autonomous fighter yet.

I suspect this is already today more limited by policies than by technology. And BTW this technology advances far faster than say engines, airframes etc. 5 years is an eternity in AI field.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Magari, dove metto la firma?

I mean, that would be an ideal win win situation, too bad too many of my compatriots, including of course the politicians are not interested in a good industrial project that would only bring advantages to the country, but prefer to be the prostitutes of England or America (in 1500 it was France or Spain).

Anyway a few years ago we built a decent land attack and air support aircraft together with Brasil (the AMX)'". Furthermore the Yak 130 and the Aermacchi MB346 started from the same project.  

If Italy would cooperate with Sukhoi or Mig for a new aircraft it would be like making one ot my hopes.a.reality

That would be fantastic, but it is simple not allowed. So much for European sovereignty!

Hole wrote:Would be easy for the west: blame Russia!

after Putin personally poisoned ex spy and offended Kanzler Merkel - giving flowers!!! you can expect form Ruskies anything.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:+100  Light fighters are more destined for defense. Can do the same but just range is smaller. I am sure LMFS will be created. It is logical step. Not only TuAF but also navy (CVN)  and export

Just a comment: if the light fighter in question is intended for export, it will need to be multi-role. Regardless of what we can thing about multi-role crap and that it goes contrary to the fighter in question being "cheap" and being "light". So it will need to have range and sensors to perform air superiority, bays big enough to be acceptable as an attack plane, fast enough to intercept... not an easy task to design such a plane!

Life's a bitch you know       If fighter is multi-role is the question of avionics + eventually AESA. What is standard now. All sensors will soon be installed to any jet fighter, processing is only matter of computational power. If speed must be high? not necessarily . Around 2Ma is just fine taking into account  adversaries in 2030s. And defense means stealth is not as important as seeing and netcentric integration so it can "see" with ground based radars.  And cost is also important. Cheap means greta cost/effectiveness ratio for lifecycle.

This is for "point" defense not attack or interception on large areas.  Of course point is lik eCSG or large industrial agglomeration so combat radius ~1000km.


and of course best option is VSTOL for small unprepared airfields      

GunshipDemocracy wrote:taking account present state of autonomous vehicles (ok for military is a step ahead but still way to go)  no way you can build autonomous fighter yet.

I suspect this is already today more limited by policies than by technology. And BTW this technology advances far faster than say engines, airframes etc. 5 years is an eternity in AI field.

[/quote]


That's why I told about 15 years not 30

LMFS wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Magari, dove metto la firma? 

If Italy would cooperate with Sukhoi or Mig for a new aircraft it would be like making one ot my hopes.a.reality

That would be fantastic, but it is simple not allowed. So much for European sovereignty!

Well Tronald Dump is just speeding up sunset of the Great Hegemon. Like 3 Reich - too many fronts opening is not good for any empire. After US pressure is out of picture everything is possible. We will wake up in new reality.

GarryB wrote:Artificial software can make complex strategies and solve problems rapidly, but even with a limit to the number of options like Chess they are fantastic, but in the real world where the actual practical options and choices are infinite it becomes a little more gray.

AI will surpass us very soon essentially in everything, you can take my word to the bank.
Already there is a dogfight program out there that is sort of unbeatable. You want to try your luck fighting it, when besides the inherent superiority of its man-machine interface and decision consistency it can count on a plane not limited by humans' very modest g-tolerance? I wouldn't!

GarryB wrote:Do you really want an AI fighter plane armed with weapons optimised for shooting things down to operate in any airspace?

Sad thing is you don't do what you want but what your enemy wants...

GarryB wrote:Would an AI pilot kill people obviously at a wedding in Yemen just because the Saudis want to create chaos in that area and it was given orders to do so?

Yes, and much better than those pussies human pilots (I am joking of course). Morality is not an issue for fighting-oriented AI unless you want to program it. And you DON'T program morality into a killing machine!

GarryB wrote:Would an AI pilot trained to follow orders no matter what kill your own men accidentally... just because they had their orders... they recognised the targets were friendly but it had its orders...

Thousand times yes, if target priority is high enough to override the obvious need to preserve friendly forces. And there will be one guy programming these override routines, that is the interesting thing...

GarryB wrote:Way too many ethical issues... especially for the US because it doesn't have to just make it ethical, but special ethical where american lives matter and no one elses does... not as easy to programme as it sounds...

Yes, that is why I say policies are the limit now. After the next step there is no turning back!

GarryB wrote:Depends how things go.

Over the next two to three decades we will see how successful Russia is at finding new trade partners... many of the new ones will grow with Russia and become developed and capable on their own.

These new allies will want to buy products with no strings attached like the ones from the west, so having an advanced fighter that is cheaper to operate than an Su-57, yet offers capabilities to make it a very useful little aircraft should make it a good seller.

If the EU does not stay together and Italy wants a change, along with a few other unhappy EU countries then they might not want F-35s anymore... but all western competition to the F-35 was killed... Italy might like to join MiG and design a new 5th gen fighter themselves based on the Russian light fighter in the same way the Indians developed the Su-30MKI from the Su-30MK.

Making it carrier capable will only broaden its appeal for domestic and export use...

I see all that and agree so much, could be talking for hours of the requirements and possibilities. But that is all based in "potential" market. Someone in Russia needs to have the balls to say: ok, we are going to do this plane no matter what happens. Ballsy but ill planed projects we had already enough and they ended all in the trash bin. Putin does not allow for such testicular people to decide the destiny of the country from what I see.

So "my song" remains the same: how much cheaper than the Su-57 is this "light" but multi-role and very capable fighter? Will it be approved in the next 5 years? Bets admitted...

GarryB wrote:I totally agree, but I think the Russians will keep their non stealthy fighters too, so the Su-57 will be in service, but so will the Su-35 and MiG-35... simply because not every problem needs stealth, or a big plane.

Exactly. The solution to costs is keeping updated 4th gen fighters in service, not developing "cheap" or "light" 5th gen ones.

GarryB wrote:That is bullshit. An F-16 is no cheaper to operate than a modern MiG-29.

We need the Russian version of the F-16 to compare then...

GarryB wrote:So that would mean the most expensive to operate aircraft would be the B-52 and not any of their new stealth aircraft... I mean it has 8 engines afterall.

You know one engine is theoretically cheaper to buy and to operate than two half the thrust for many reasons. Currently the Izd. 30 would allow for a light fighter in the the required size range with only one engine and the advantage that it has already been developed.

GarryB wrote:

Could cooperate with Sukhoi or Mig for a new aircraft it would be like making one ot my hopes.a.reality

Italian cooperation will only make it a better product...

+1000 Of course Finmeccanica has great engineering traditions but design it THE secret ingredient here :D:D

The key is to limit its weight... multirole is easy... 5th gen electronics and sensor fusion and all that crap will make it multirole... that is easy... the important thing to avoid is mission creep... if you make it a bomber able to fly 2,000km to targets with 7 tons of bombs and also able to carry 12 AAMs in the air to air role it will end up bigger and heavier and much more expensive than the bigger aircraft it is supposed to support.

I would say limit weight and max payload and keep in mind that this is a light fighter... it will be operating with Su-57s and MiG-41s as well as MiG-31s and MiG-35s and Su-35s.
Don't make it VSTOL... make it small and highly manouverable... it wont need enormous amounts of weapons most of the time... in fact something like a battery of 20 MANPADs could make it useful against swarm type attacks or cruise missile attacks without needing enormous weapon bays etc...

small, light - goo d cheap if you mean lifecycle most important criterion. Will it be 2 or 1 engine? we'll need to see. However Butowski's drawing suggested 2 engines and canards... he might be wrong but as I remember his drawings about PAK FA were fairly accurate.

Swarm of drones cheaper will because lasers/masers . Light fighter is more like point defense either fleet or metropolis. Payload is not main fetish here.

STOL or better VSTOL highly desirable. Short take off lanes or vertical landing (fleet)

I suspect this is already today more limited by policies than by technology. And BTW this technology advances far faster than say engines, airframes etc. 5 years is an eternity in AI field.

It does, but when you put a machine in charge of weapons... you better make sure it is safe... I know... sounds silly...

no its not its effective.

Easy to make them kill, but hard to make them know when not to kill...

like pilots know shooting BVR missiles?

Remember ED209....

"Please put down your weapon... you have ten seconds to comply..."

you're really an old fart remembering this one. And this was 20 seconds not 10

After US pressure is out of picture everything is possible. We will wake up in new reality.

Working though... oil $80 per barrel and climbing...

Tht was nto exactly my point. You're form N so perhaps I illustrate with scene form LOTR should be easier . IMHO US oversees so called world community or collective west as this high beam cunt Sauron's eye. Once Eye is gone west is dissipate as bunch of orcs.

Most computer sims I used to play in the 1990s were already too hard for me to beat, but it is rather more than that... there are reasons there is no fighter UCAV yet and no real plans for either...

same as cars -not yet mature tech

Exactly. The solution to costs is keeping updated 4th gen fighters in service, not developing "cheap" or "light" 5th gen ones.

I don't think 4th gen fighters preclude the development of a light 5th gen fighter...

or something closer to 6th gen. Since development starts later?

3.2 million for improved flight performance with upgraded engines or 24 million for brand new engines... more than half the cost of the aircraft for new engines... now what were you saying about more powerful single engine fighter engines?

but you have already 5gen engine ready ... AL-41F

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Life's a bitch you know       If fighter is multi-role is the question of avionics + eventually AESA. What is standard now. All sensors will soon be installed to any jet fighter, processing is only matter of computational power. If speed must be high? not necessarily . Around 2Ma is just fine taking into account  adversaries in 2030s. And defense means stealth is not as important as seeing and netcentric integration so it can "see" with ground based radars.  And cost is also important. Cheap means greta cost/effectiveness ratio for lifecycle.

This is for "point" defense not attack or interception on large areas.  Of course point is lik eCSG or large industrial agglomeration so combat radius ~1000km.


and of course best option is VSTOL for small unprepared airfields      

You enjoy poking me in the eye with that STOVL crap don't you?

We can discuss it if you want too...

But to your comments above:
1) No, multirole is not only sensors. Multirole means big weapon bays to carry big air-to-ground ordnance. For Russian standards that means weapons ca. 4.2 m long, 40 cm diameter + wings (folded in the last versions). PAK-FA has two bays, a LMFs should have one. If you don't do this you can say goodbye to the international market.
2) You are right that every fighter now has complex avionics... that is why the size of the fighter is not so relevant for the cost as it used to be. Argument against the "light" fighter.
3) 2 M is already more than F-35, F-18 and Rafale. And supposedly matches F-22, F-16 and Su-57 (I suspect the Su-57 can get much faster but that's another topic). So not slow at all. Aerodynamics must be designed accordingly considering the bays, see the case of the F-35 for an example of not achieving that.
4) 1000 km combat radius is already more than that of a F-22! I would agree on that value as desirable but that is not possible for most fighters today on internal fuel... blended wing-body structure needed + big wing tanks

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
That's why I told about 15 years not 30

Laugh now while you can... xD

Here am I, struggling to catch up with GarryBot's lightning speed to interact with humans in a forum and on top of that he argues against AI... xD

GarryB wrote:
The key is to limit its weight... multirole is easy... 5th gen electronics and sensor fusion and all that crap will make it multirole... that is easy... the important thing to avoid is mission creep... if you make it a bomber able to fly 2,000km to targets with 7 tons of bombs and also able to carry 12 AAMs in the air to air role it will end up bigger and heavier and much more expensive than the bigger aircraft it is supposed to support.

I would say limit weight and max payload and keep in mind that this is a light fighter... it will be operating with Su-57s and MiG-41s as well as MiG-31s and MiG-35s and Su-35s.
Don't make it VSTOL... make it small and highly manouverable... it wont need enormous amounts of weapons most of the time... in fact something like a battery of 20 MANPADs could make it useful against swarm type attacks or cruise missile attacks without needing enormous weapon bays etc...

See answer to Gunship... air to ground ordnance needed for multirole, those are big! For export you need all a heavy fighter can do but much cheaper... hopefully

I entertained exactly what is the size and approximate weight needed for a true multirole single engine "light" fighter. I think it is doable around 10 ton empty weight, maybe even less with comprehensive optimizations of weapons too. Less it wont work really.

GarryB wrote:
Remember ED209....

"Please put down your weapon... you have ten seconds to comply..."

Classic...

Hahaha!

GarryB wrote:
Most computer sims I used to play in the 1990s were already too hard for me to beat, but it is rather more than that... there are reasons there is no fighter UCAV yet and no real plans for either...

That is what they say... I don't believe them. They are working on that like there is no tomorrow!

GarryB wrote:
...then why would we think software would be in any trouble for murdering people too.

Pretty much!

GarryB wrote:
The real question is how long will conventional non stealth aircraft remain viable against modern air defence systems... the Su-57 will never be made in numbers suitable to face 2.500 F-35s, no matter how inferior they are, and I don't think they will have thousands of Su-35 and MiG-35s, but with a lighter cheaper... stealthy MiG-21 type aircraft they might be able to build enough to be useful and effective... no guarantees however, but another MiG-21 for the export market would be good.

Quite a few things here:

1) If we care to consider what Mindstorm points out, it doesn't seem like stealth is that stealth at all. And not that decisive.
2) Su-57 will never be massively produced but the F-35 will IMHO also not reach 2500 units. So you need less than a 10:1 ratio against it
3) MiG-21 as drone in the thousands would be actually a good idea . But such a simple plane will not comply to 5th gen standards. So you are not going to have huge numbers of them.
4) For export market as said you need a very complete, capable plane. Also not cheap.

GarryB wrote:
I don't think 4th gen fighters preclude the development of a light 5th gen fighter...

Not, but makes it less necessary

GarryB wrote:

We need the Russian version of the F-16 to compare then...

MiG-23.

One generation older!

GarryB wrote:
You know that with only one engine even with vectored thrust you can raise and lower the nose and swing it left and right, but no roll control with differential control of two engine nozzles?

Yes sir!

GarryB wrote:
One engine greatly reduces the frontal drag surface, but also the internal volume... which is why most new F-16s have those ugly conformal tank arrangements...

See my proposal in the pages before... big bay before the engine using space available under the air duct area... Very tight but doable with a frontal section slightly bigger than F-16 but a world smaller than F-35. BWB for high internal fuel capacity.

GarryB wrote:
The MiG-29 is faster than the F-16 because two 8 ton thrust engines make 16 tons thrust and the F-16 doesn't have a 16 ton thrust engine...

Dont have time for details but would argue that the speed difference is not due to T/W ratio but intake design...

GarryB wrote:
The new more powerful engines for the Il-76 were 6 million dollars each... compared with 800,000 for upgraded older engines that improved the fuel economy but with the same thrust.

3.2 million for improved flight performance with upgraded engines or 24 million for brand new engines... more than half the cost of the aircraft for new engines... now what were you saying about more powerful single engine fighter engines?

Ok, now you are the defender of the cheapo solutions? That is my role man...
Fighters depend critically on the best engines, I think we agree on that. Su-57 will go for the absolute top engine the Russians can do and it has already a very decent one...

Izd. 30 as said makes a light/medium fighter, single engine and with outstanding kinetic performance possible.

GarryB wrote:
There of course is the issue that they already removed all single engined fighters and fighter bombers from service...

Yes, any Russian doctrine against it??

One engined aircraft were described as "unsafe" under Gorbachev. Political trick for a onesided disarmament.

Hole wrote:One engined aircraft were described as "unsafe" under Gorbachev. Political trick for a onesided disarmament.

I can see you must love Gorbi even more the we all do

Hole wrote:One engined aircraft were described as "unsafe" under Gorbachev. Political trick for a onesided disarmament.

Rule#1: listen to what Gorbachov says and then do exactly the opposite. This is the moron that canceled Buran/Energia project just when they put it into service.



As for light fighter, simply take I-30 engine and build a fighter-jet around it. Simple.

Every single part you need already exits and is in mass production, just add airframe.

LMFS wrote:

This is for "point" defense not attack or interception on large areas.  Of course point is lik eCSG or large industrial agglomeration so combat radius ~1000km.


and of course best option is VSTOL for small unprepared airfields      

You enjoy poking me in the eye with that STOVL crap don't you?

Noooo,
         hmm perhaps a bit,
                                    yes yes yes I do
   

We can discuss it if you want too...

But to your comments above:
1) No, multirole is not only sensors. Multirole means big weapon bays to carry big air-to-ground ordnance. For Russian standards that means weapons ca. 4.2 m long, 40 cm diameter + wings (folded in the last versions). PAK-FA has two bays, a LMFs should have one. If you don't do this you can say goodbye to the international market.
2) You are right that every fighter now has complex avionics... that is why the size of the fighter is not so relevant for the cost as it used to be. Argument against the "light" fighter.
3) 2 M is already more than F-35, F-18 and Rafale. And supposedly matches F-22, F-16 and Su-57 (I suspect the Su-57 can get much faster but that's another topic). So not slow at all. Aerodynamics must be designed accordingly considering the bays, see the case of the F-35 for an example of not achieving that.
4) 1000 km combat radius is already more than that of a F-22! I would agree on that value as desirable but that is not possible for most fighters today on internal fuel... blended wing-body structure needed + big wing tanks

Ad 1+2 ) My bad I was not clear enough. Integrated sensors , avionics are must regardless of size.   Light - means cheap. Cheap means not build from scratch . In Russian case radars, engines, sensors or weapons are already "off shelf" developed for PAK-FA.


Bomb bay .  OF course "stealthiness " helps . It is not that you cannot be seen but you surely  are being seen less. Similar to military uniform

Internal bomb bay for defense fighter? Hmm size and payload is not real fetish to me.  What was usage of F-18 or Su-34 payload capabilities in Syria? 1 bomb 1500kg? It is like buying the truck if all you really need to carry is 6 pack of beer.  

Perhaps standardized bombay makes sense though. But would make concessions to speed and maneuverability otherwise we got second F-35.

What besides is important size (for fleet) look at size comparison KFX-201/F-35vs  PAK-FA and VSTOL (Fleet    )





Ad 3)  I said around 2 M. Can be less like Yak-141 :D:D There is no need to have something flying mostly theoretically high speed  is most of time you fly around 1Ma anyway.
AFAIK Su-57, F-15 or F22 - all are 2500km/h + class


Ad 4) radius - it should be less 1000 say half Su-30 = 500-600km.  St Petersburg - Helsinki (390 km) ... St Petersburg Tallinn 370 km , Moscow-Riga - 840km, Kaliningrad  - Warsaw - 380



BTW short note about MiG LFI concept. Not sure reliability of sources though. Interestingly thsi is not very far form Butowski (Air & Cosmos) drawing...
http://www.paralay.world/lfi_mig.html




However I'd rather see this in modern edition like KFX 201

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
That's why I told about 15 years not 30

Laugh now while you can... xD[/quote]

I am dealing with Ai on daily basis not military though

Hole wrote:One engined aircraft were described as "unsafe" under Gorbachev. Political trick for a onesided disarmament.

Poor Gorbi

PapaDragon wrote:
Rule#1: listen to what Gorbachov says and then do exactly the opposite. This is the moron that canceled Buran/Energia project just when they put it into service.

As for light fighter, simply take I-30 engine and build a fighter-jet around it. Simple.

Every single part you need already exits and is in mass production, just add airframe.

Agree, with Izd. 30 they have the engine in the right size. They should manage the work share among the engine design bureaus and manufacturing plants but developing two engines like AL-31 and RD-33 would not make sense to me. And the PAK-FA project should have allowed to create a lot of technologies and components that could be used in LMFS...

LMFS wrote:

Hole wrote:One engined aircraft were described as "unsafe" under Gorbachev. Political trick for a onesided disarmament.

Poor Gorbi

PapaDragon wrote:


As for light fighter, simply take I-30 engine and build a fighter-jet around it. Simple.

Every single part you need already exits and is in mass production, just add airframe.

Agree, with Izd. 30 they have the engine in the right size. They should manage the work share among the engine design bureaus and manufacturing plants but developing two engines like AL-31 and RD-33 would not make sense to me. And the PAK-FA project should have allowed to create a lot of technologies and components that could be used in LMFS...

So, let's conclude that there is a consensus that the LFMS should be a delta canard airframe powered by a single Izd.30, with a single bomb bay?

Or there are other possible configurations?
Like a enlarged SR-10 reverse swept wing?

Single izd.30 would IMHO stay but single or double intake?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Noooo,
         hmm perhaps a bit,
                                    yes yes yes I do
   

"In your face" malevolence, I like it

Now half seriously, even when this can sound all too evident: if you put that crap inside a plane it will NEVER be competitive against NORMAL planes, because weight and space are simply too scarce and critical in a combat aircraft. Beyond that, you will burden also the CTOL version. Reason is you need the engine in a much more central position than you would do in a normal design (see your own picture below). If the plane does not have internal bays this is bad but if you need them you wont have other option than placing them around the engine as in F-35 and X-32. Result is a plane with too big frontal area that consequently will greatly suffer in terms of acceleration, speed and range and specially in supersonic flight, so forget supercruise also, which is needed not only for air superiority but also for attack roles.

I am having strange problems with my forum interface and cannot post pictures now but consider the following frontal areas (from paralay):
F-22: 9,25 m²
Su-57: 9,47 m²
F-35A: 8,12 m²
F-16 < 5 m² IIRC

Besides, since the F-35 was originated as a "light" fighter they made it quite short (ca. 15,5 m). The finesse is a key factor of wave drag and this plane suffers at the same time from big frontal area and reduced length. Not a good combination for a supersonic jet.

So IMHO better to decouple the plane from take-off or landing requirements that are not feasible with its inherent capacities as CTOL fighter, by means of catapults or whatever

Operate from damaged runways or roads? Yes, use a robust undercarriage as all Russian fighters.
"Short" take off? Yes, by means of high T/W ratio, low wing loading, TVC, canards...
STOVL? Nooooooo! ...would rather agree to launch them with a booster from a UKSK than that

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Ad 1+2 ) My bad I was not clear enough. Integrated sensors , avionics are must regardless of size.   Light - means cheap. Cheap means not build from scratch . In Russian case radars, engines, sensors or weapons are already "off shelf" developed for PAK-FA.

Obviously not "off the shelf" in all cases you mention but much closer than before the PAK-FA project yes...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Bomb bay .  OF course "stealthiness " helps . It is not that you cannot be seen but you surely  are being seen less. Similar to military uniform

I think LO widens the tactical opportunities and neglects some weak spot to your enemy so it makes sense within reason. Reducing "S" is an obvious way to reduce SNR in the adversary's radar but increasing "R" also works...
Also apparent visual size is an issue, see the last camouflage paint in the T-50; here the LMFS would have an obvious advantage.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Internal bomb bay for defense fighter? Hmm size and payload is not real fetish to me.  What was usage of F-18 or Su-34 payload capabilities in Syria? 1 bomb 1500kg? It is like buying the truck if all you really need to carry is 6 pack of beer.

Well not only defense fighter IMHO, export buyers do not necessarily have heavy fighters.

Actually the internal bomb bay capacities of existing 5th gen fighter are rather exiguous. Two 2,000 pounds bombs in the F-35 already forced to degrade its lower fuselage LO shaping. I would say 2 x 500 kg bombs / Kh-35 / Kh-58/... I agree that in most cases the use is not going to demand 8 tons ordnance but a minimal internal capability is needed beyond RCS issues due to drag reduction / range issues.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Perhaps standardized bombay makes sense though. But would make concessions to speed and maneuverability otherwise we got second F-35.

Yes, agree. Very important to develop weapons optimized for the internal carriage, no sense in carrying "empty space" inside a bomb bay!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
What besides is important size (for fleet) look at size comparison KFX-201/F-35vs  PAK-FA and VSTOL (Fleet    )

Yeah, LMFS with well devised folding wings would help to get more on board a smaller carrier. I wonder nevertheless if handling of planes in the hangars and decks may be optimized, seems very chaotic / complicated from what I have seen.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Ad 3)  I said around 2 M. Can be less like Yak-141 :D:D There is no need to have something flying mostly theoretically high speed  is most of time you fly around 1Ma anyway.
AFAIK Su-57, F-15 or F22 - all are 2500km/h + class

You like your Mach Number - km/h confusions as well I see.
Both F-22 and PAK-FA are officially 2 M planes. F-15 IIRC is 2,5 M. Due to the intakes in the PAK-FA I think it should be capable of more than that, the F-22 does not have adjustable ramps.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Ad 4) radius - it should be less 1000 say half Su-30 = 500-600km.  St Petersburg - Helsinki (390 km) ... St Petersburg Tallinn 370 km , Moscow-Riga - 840km, Kaliningrad  - Warsaw - 380

Bombing in Europe is so convenient isn't it?
Lo-Hi-Lo with ordnance on internal fuel does not look so fantastic in most planes except Sukhois and maybe F-35. 2500 km clean on internal fuel would be a very good number. Russians would no complaint due to ridiculous range compared to Flanker versions and export customers could have an opportunity defending heavy fighters and F-35s.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW short note about MiG LFI concept. Not sure reliability of sources though. Interestingly thsi is not very far form Butowski (Air & Cosmos) drawing...

Is all fan art or personal interpretations as far as I know. Obviously for a MiG it would make sense to use the MFI aerodynamic configuration (based or at least veery similar to the HIMAT) but logically updated to LO shaping, most interpretations of LMFS skip this part since they are old.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
However I'd rather see this in modern edition like KFX 201

Looks Russian enough with those canards!

Single engine and ventral intake and you are almost there!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I am dealing with Ai on daily basis not military though

Mmmmm, ok then maybe I should shut up No seriously, I am surrounded by IT / AI nerds. And the things which are already possible are beyond what most people suspect, wouldn't you agree? I would say almost all basic individual capacities are there but the integration, training and above all, testing of such non-deterministic systems is quite an issue of course... it will go step by step and that may delay the results but if it was a matter of wining a war you would have them tomorrow in the skies I think.

marcellogo wrote:
So, let's conclude that there is a consensus that the LFMS should be a delta canard airframe powered by a single Izd.30, with a single bomb bay?

Canards are said traditionally to be non-stealthy in the public domain... I fail to understand why wings and leading edge slats are acceptable and canards are not. J-20 has them. Lockheed proposal before JSF had them. Su-57 has LEVCONS with some common features / functions of canards. Maybe somebody can comment on that but I would say they make aerodynamic sense both in terms of increased lift of the foreplane itself and lift augmentation / flow attachment of the main wing. So they look logical to me, at least to be considered. Delta wing allows low wing load and big fuel capacity. I would think a trapezoidal wing could be better than pure delta though.

The MFI had rear elevators in an unconventional position additionally to the canards. It would fit quite well with separated vertical rudders and blended wing-body. Also the redundancy of control surfaces + TVC would be ideal for control, trimming and LO, I am curious as to how this would work aerodynamically but in terms of agility and high AoA capacity should be among the best configurations.

I think it is better to keep separated bays for different weapons since the dimensions are completely different for different classes of weapons. A proposal:

1) Big bay for two air-to-ground weapons or long range AAM. Ca. 4,5 x 1 m. Depth depending on pylons, clearances and construction but applicable weapons in Russian arsenal (at least the ones conceived for the PAK-FA) have 40 cm diameter. Of course also MRAAMs could be carried in this bay if the mission calls for it.

2) Two small side bays for MRAAM with extensible pylons for rail launch. They could be used for reconnaissance equipment in a special version.

3) Two wing root bays for SRAAAM like in PAK-FA, this is a very compact weapon and that firing position is optimal IMHO. The bay has minimal interference with anything else on the plane and allows always having a last resort weapon independent of other payload.

Keeping four MRAAM semi-recessed like in Eurofighter would be very good for interception missions where LO is not that important.

marcellogo wrote:
Or there are other possible configurations?
Like a enlarged SR-10 reverse swept wing?

No opinion here. Despite all studies and advances the most common configuration remains the conventional tail plane, normally swept wing, maybe only because of the huge amount of know how accumulated with them

marcellogo wrote:
Single izd.30 would IMHO stay but single or double intake?

One ventral intake should make minimally less drag than two on the sides (was studied for the F-16). It is very good under high AoA. I have the impression that it naturally leads to smaller frontal area but reduced radar aperture. Most LO designs actual and tentative go for two side intakes like in the F-22 probably because they allow for an easier integration of the weapon bays but this works better with two engines. With one engine I would go for the single ventral intake and would make sure the weapons are designed with the carrier in mind, Russians depend only on themselves for that so makes sense. F-35 guys are already calling for this for new weapons, I imagine how frustrating it must be to have a plane severely hindered by the requirement to keep compatibility with weapons not optimized for internal carriage

It this spat continues developing further the ideal (for Russia) outcome would be Turkey ditching the F-35 altogether and going for the TF-X with their technical support (in other words help paying the LMFS).

https://sputniknews.com/world/201805251064808775-turkey-us-russia-s-400-systems/

The considered configurations are already in the good direction I would say:



Not that this would be necessarily better than what we saw with the FGFA but an international "partner" (rather buyer with ToT but lets call it that way) would help ensuring the market if contract is articulated properly.

Has Turkey already make significant investments in the F-35?

EDIT: BS, Turkish media apparently reports handover of F-35 already in June...

Any idea to what this model can be? Definitely looks like a 5G light fighter from MiG...

LMFS wrote:Any idea to what this model can be? Definitely looks like a 5G light fighter from MiG...

where did u find it?

George1 wrote:where did u find it?

Capture from the Zvezda program "Voennaya Priemka". They were not talking about LMFS but used that model for some other explanation. Just found it very different to anything I have seen from MiG before. Canopy looks like that of a F-16 but then there is a faceting on the side like in modern LO designs... intriguing!

LMFS wrote:

George1 wrote:where did u find it?

Capture from the Zvezda program "Voennaya Priemka". They were not talking about LMFS but used that model for some other explanation. Just found it very different to anything I have seen from MiG before. Canopy looks like that of a F-16 but then there is a faceting on the side like in modern LO designs... intriguing!

Glad to see LMFS in making. Not you tho I mean you in making

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

George1 wrote:where did u find it?

Capture from the Zvezda program "Voennaya Priemka". They were not talking about LMFS but used that model for some other explanation. Just found it very different to anything I have seen from MiG before. Canopy looks like that of a F-16 but then there is a faceting on the side like in modern LO designs... intriguing!

Glad to see LMFS in making. Not you tho  I mean you in making

I would sign anytime if LMFs was already in that level of design and looked so nice... I'm just having many doubts that is the case!

LMFS wrote:
I would sign anytime if LMFs was already in that level of design and looked so nice... I'm just having many doubts that is the case!

There were long time rumors about MiG working on new light fighter (call if  LMFS if you prefer). Long time ago I remember an interview wti Pogosyan about Sukhoi. In his cabinet was little mode of fighter. Strikingly similar to Su-57... it was long ago before any official shape was shown.


Do you remember 2017 Butowski's drawing?  



or Yak-201 proposal ?  of course no relation  

i dont think that there is official project for LMFS development, just proposed