PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

why would russia blow money on this project? pak-fa can replace it and has supercruise , many radars and sensors....

Mig would be much better to joint venture with china on light 5gen fighter FC-31 and then produce it for their airforces and export it jointly.

i mean russia already gives lot of technology in su-35 , so new mig cooperation would not be prohibitive and yet highly benefitial  for both.

improved fc-31 would very well replace mig-29. yet russia is stuck with this improved old (obsolete old) mentality and mig"35"..

Isos wrote:

I also think the MiG-41 must have priority over the LMFS. First because it looking to replace a veteran aircraft, that it is alone in its cathegory. The MiG-41 is the future of an entire cathegory in the military armament. Also because this is a project that means technological advance. And finally because being well done it would improve the band image of MiG as a technological leader in the military aviation industry.

Mig-41 won't be a success in the exoport market. No one will bought them (maybe China ??). On the other side a light 5th gen Mig will. They are losing all their clients and Mig-35 will not be exported in many numbers as it's a 4 gen fighter that came in the game when countries are buying 5 gen fighters, Su-30 series are bought instead, look at Algeria. And now with the J-35 it will be harder to sell to even poor countries.

Russia won't also be able to buy Sukhois and Migs. At the time of Mig-29 and Su-27, the first one was very cheap while the second one better but expensive. Now that you an put pretty much the same techno in both, the Mig-29/35 isn't cheap at all and it's capabilities are worst in every way to Pak-fa Su-35.

The Mig-41 is wast of time, Mig-31 BM is good enough  and they can still produce them and keep upgrading them, it's a very big and powerfull Aircraft so no problem to put new technologies in it. Like you said they are there to counter US missiles, I don't think there will be a war between them, they are not crazy.

MLFS could be very good for export. Inida is planning to start a new competition for 200 light fighters, they also need new carrier based fighter for their CATOBAR carrier, Egypt is looking for new relations and not be militarly dependent on US, Phillipines are turning over Russia instead of US, African countries's situation is going to be better as the world's economy is growing. So yes I think a cheap MLFS should be prioritised instead of Mig-41.

big myth, mig -29 was a fail in ussr , it was 50% of su-27 but in CAPABILITY, it wasnt 50% in PRICE , it was 75%. .... so the whole concept failed.

so you had 50% capability at 75% price no wonder many countries went for su-27 in the end.

and any move to improve mig-29 made it more expencive and more closer in price to su-27.
in the end ,mig cant produce new aircraft alone no way.

Guys any idea about the avionics suite of the Mig 41 ? By the time mig 41 gets into service somewhere in the future ROFAR would be available (according to KRET it is expected to mature in 2020 ) , so i'd assume it may make use of this technology .

big myth, mig -29 was a fail in ussr , it was 50% of su-27 but in CAPABILITY, it wasnt 50% in PRICE , it was 75%. .... so the whole concept failed.

so you had 50% capability at 75% price no wonder many countries went for su-27 in the end.

and any move to improve mig-29 made it more expencive and more closer in price to su-27.
in the end ,mig cant produce new aircraft alone no way.

That's not Mig fault. They had to do smaller,less capable so cheaper Aircraft. It was the doctrine adopted. They could have made a decent fighter. But like you said the cost was underestimated and the capacities were very bad. That's not surprising Russia put all the efforts on Sukhoi.
At then they needed to chose between them and they chosed Sukhoi. If Mig was given the project of the Su-27 they would be in charfe of the pak da today.

Now they are trying to save them with the mig-35 which I think won't be a success. They really need a small light fighter for export market if they want to survive. All their foreign exported Migs will be out of service in the next decade and there won't be new deals for upgrading. So the only choice they have is build somthing really new which many countries want, i.e. a light, cheap 5 gen multirole carrier based fighter.

why would russia blow money on this project? pak-fa can replace it and has supercruise , many radars and sensors....

Mig would be much better to joint venture with china on light 5gen fighter FC-31 and then produce it for their airforces and export it jointly.

i mean russia already gives lot of technology in su-35 , so new mig cooperation would not be prohibitive and yet highly benefitial for both.

improved fc-31 would very well replace mig-29. yet russia is stuck with this improved old (obsolete old) mentality and mig"35"..

Pak fa will be expensive. The 50 million$ unit price you can see on some website is total fiction. They need an Advanced ligt Aircraft.
To be verified but Russian didn't made a ToT with the su35. They just sold 24 su-35 export model.

Su-35 for Australia was more of a hoax than a real possibility. Also "pretty much nothing" is too harash term to be used, downgraded yes, but less and less though time. MKI is even today best variant of Su-30 there is. Majority of new equipment that Russia is fielding was exported before it reached service in Russian forces. Things changed since Soviet Union.

Dramatic reduction in capabilities of export models today cant pass on market, noone will buy third rate downgraded junk anymore if he has any possibility to choose. Why do you think Indians wanted Israeli-french avionics in MKI? Because what Russians offered simply wasnt good enough and prices were more or less same.

Wont comment on CAD thing, its funny Smile

Well Something like Pak fa would be secret if it was USSR. It is not secret today and they really want to sell it.

They were in a very bad eco situation when they sold Su to India, of course their techno wasn't good. 10 years of starving, nothing to eat and you think they will be competitive. But today they are at the same lvl as western countries, I would rather go in a fight with a SM than MKI or a tyhoon.

And I don't think they will do dramatic reduction in capabilities for the export models today. It's more like you said an open architecture and you put what you want in it and for exemple the alghorithms won't be the same for the the radar tracking but they won't be worst neither. Technology permits to do in a different way but keeping secrets of your domestic variant. Like you said things changed. Why India isn't goingfor Israeli radar ? They developed barack 8 together, they could developpe and all new radar for ther MKI but yet they are going to upgrade them with Russian radar.

A CAD simulation will give you an idea of the aerodynamics. At the time of the of Mig-17 and Sabre I suppose they would look at the drawings and made some little model to see the comportement of the Aircraft. It's funny but It's better than Nothing

Guys any idea about the avionics suite of the Mig 41 ? By the time mig 41 gets into service somewhere in the future ROFAR would be available (according to KRET it is expected to mature in 2020 ) , so i'd assume it may make use of this technology .

Russians and their prédictions .... It's a new technology, I don't think in 3 years it's will be available. If it is there are more chances to see it on the F-35 first.

PAK FA is a multi function aircraft but it is not a dedicated PVO interceptor.

You could use it in the role just like you could use it as a CAS aircraft and an inflight refuelling tanker and strategic bomber and everything else.

A purpose designed interceptor makes more sense.

Regarding the light 5th gen fighter it would be critical to make it cheaper.

It does not need to be single engined but it needs to be light and cheap to operate.

The biggest problem with the F-35 is that it is designed to do everything and replace everything and that is going to make it too expensive for most users to buy enough to make them an effective force...

MiG has its own niche in the role of Fighter Interceptor, where it is the most outstanding aircraft they designed in the 1960s and 1970s, the MiG-25 and the MiG-31. For MiG as a brand it is key to keep their leading role in this niche.

The value of the high speed is not declining, the niche has a future, and today MiG is the worlwide leader in the niche. To assure its future, MiG "only" must do a new aircraft advanced enough to keep the niche living, and for it the new aircraft must have enough advantage on speed, which is the key feature in the niche.

The strategy of the US developing subsonic strategic bombers makes the things easier for the MiG-41, but still must have enough advantage over the fighters on speed to have an important place in the arsenals.

HM1199 wrote:Guys any idea about the avionics suite of the Mig 41 ? By the time mig 41 gets into service somewhere in the future ROFAR would be available (according to KRET it is expected to mature in 2020 ) , so i'd assume it may make use of this technology .

Surely it is too early to know about it. Not sure if these systems will be developed to be "compatible" with as high speeds.

GarryB wrote:PAK FA is a multi function aircraft but it is not a dedicated PVO interceptor.

You could use it in the role just like you could use it as a CAS aircraft and an inflight refuelling tanker and strategic bomber and everything else.

A purpose designed interceptor makes more sense.

Regarding the light 5th gen fighter it would be critical to make it cheaper.

It does not need to be single engined but it needs to be light and cheap to operate.

The biggest problem with the F-35 is that it is designed to do everything and replace everything and that is going to make it too expensive for most users to buy enough to make them an effective force...

really? then su-27p interceptor is bad too? and f-22 is bad interceptor?
pak -fa can do that role very easily , and dedicated heavy interceptor would mean less money ,less pak-fa thus more expencive lower volume production.
mig is trying to get some funds but its very wrong to go that route and it will fail 100% it seems they have childlish wishfull thinking board like some posters on this forum, it should concentrate on joint venture with chinese in producing light fc-31.
supercruising pak-fa with 4 longrange missiles and 3 radars in the nose is bad interceptor. LOL

Rmf wrote:

GarryB wrote:PAK FA is a multi function aircraft but it is not a dedicated PVO interceptor.

You could use it in the role just like you could use it as a CAS aircraft and an inflight refuelling tanker and strategic bomber and everything else.

A purpose designed interceptor makes more sense.

Regarding the light 5th gen fighter it would be critical to make it cheaper.

It does not need to be single engined but it needs to be light and cheap to operate.

The biggest problem with the F-35 is that it is designed to do everything and replace everything and that is going to make it too expensive for most users to buy enough to make them an effective force...

really? then su-27p interceptor is bad too? and f-22 is bad interceptor?
pak -fa can do that role very easily , and dedicated heavy interceptor would mean less money ,less pak-fa thus more expencive lower volume production.
mig is trying to get some funds but its very wrong to go that route and it will fail 100% it seems they have childlish wishfull thinking board like some posters on this forum, it should concentrate on joint venture with chinese in producing light fc-31.
supercruising pak-fa with 4 longrange missiles and 3 radars in the nose is bad interceptor. LOL

Then comes the time when you have to explain how China would be interested on this. The reality is that China would have zero need and zero interest.

really? then su-27p interceptor is bad too? and f-22 is bad interceptor?

I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that while the Flanker is a good long range fighter it is not better than the MiG-31 when it comes to interception.

And any plane that suffocates its pilot is bad.

pak -fa can do that role very easily , and dedicated heavy interceptor would mean less money ,less pak-fa thus more expencive lower volume production.

A MiG-31 with updated systems would still be a rather better interceptor than anything else currently flying.

An upgraded MiG-41 should be even better.

The stealth features of the PAK FA have no value in interception duties and are a waste of money and time. Having to tape and then coat external panels when accessed for maintainence will make them rather expensive... and flying at high speed all the time will wear surface coatings which will need rather more maintainence.

The two large main internal bays will allow 4 R-37M missiles to be carried. With minor modification of the belly of the MiG-31 6 can be carried and the wing hardpoints are free for more missiles.

mig is trying to get some funds but its very wrong to go that route and it will fail 100% it seems they have childlish wishfull thinking board like some posters on this forum, it should concentrate on joint venture with chinese in producing light fc-31.

Why would MiG drop all its plans for a light 5th gen fighter and start a joint venture with China to develop and aircraft they have already designed?

supercruising pak-fa with 4 longrange missiles and 3 radars in the nose is bad interceptor. LOL

A 1 million dollar Rolls Royce can pull a plough too so why bother with a tractor?

If the PAK FA is too expensive and a light 5th gen fighter replacement is needed then why do you think it makes sense to make more PAK FAs for the role of interceptor?

If making more PAK FAs is better then don't make a light 5th gen fighter...

The Su-35 and the Su-27 weren't good enough to replace the MiG-31, then why do you think the PAK FA could replace the MiG-31?

The PVO has been talking about a replacement for the MiG-31 and they are the ones that use the aircraft.

The PAK FA will be a useful fighter for the RuAF, and the Russian Navy will likely buy both land based and ship based versions of it.

It will also likely be useful as a lighter strike aircraft and as a recon and jamming platform, yet the Su-34 exists so long range heavy strike will not be its job.

Clearly talk of a MiG-41 suggests long range interception will not be its job either.

Rfm wrote:really? then su-27p interceptor is bad too? and f-22 is bad interceptor?
pak -fa can do that role very easily , and dedicated heavy interceptor would mean less money ,less pak-fa thus more expencive lower volume production.

Bad is a relative word Rfm, i would say instead that all those aircraft ,if МиГ-31 is taken as term of reference, are not even in the same league when interceptor and DCA role is concerned.

Difference in cruising altitude, supersonic rate of climb, cruising speed, before-missile delivery acceleration, highly optimized aerodynamic layout and armament render МиГ-31 a product unique and more a defensive strategic asset than a mere air force element.

http://vpk-news.ru/articles/19183


As stressed more times МиГ-31 unique features (particularly in relation to its weapon suit and some aerodynamic, hull shaping and material composition solutions, representing still today achievements without equal anywhere in the world) allow the aircraft to provide an huge assymetric advantage in a possible scenario against near peer opponents ,above all one where a limited employment of tactical nuclear warheads, purposely developed for this product, could render almost irrelevant dozen of years and several hundreds billion dollars of investement in aircraft production of almost any kind by part of most likely potential opponents and "force" a sudden de-escalation of the conflict.


ПАК ДП will bring this strategic defensive component to a completely new level including in the equation not only stand-off delivery range and velocity of degradation of the enemy key offensive elements simply untinkable up even only few years ago, but also space-based dimension.

again garry with his traditional stupid comparisons ,no comment , ofcourse mig-31 cant be modified to carry 6 missiles like we see, it just cant so quit wishfull thinking, only new units can be made and they wont be made, so your talk is vapourware like the rest...
heavy interceptor would be very expencive to produce and operate ,much more then pak-fa , and would shrink pak-fa budget to half.
less stealth pak-fa can work as interceptor just fine.
mig-31 has cruising mach 2.35 and pak -fa will supercruise for much longer at 1,8mach which is good enough.

again garry with his traditional stupid comparisons ,no comment , ofcourse mig-31 cant be modified to carry 6 missiles like we see, it just cant so quit wishfull thinking, only new units can be made and they wont be made, so your talk is vapourware like the rest...

Hahahahaha... yeah buddy... the very idea they could fit say six R-37s on the belly of a modified MiG-31 is lunacy.

I mean the fact that they did it with the MiG-31M prototype means nothing...



Vapourware... magic... myth...

heavy interceptor would be very expencive to produce and operate ,much more then pak-fa , and would shrink pak-fa budget to half.
less stealth pak-fa can work as interceptor just fine.

The customer seems to want an upgraded faster MiG-31... which they cannot get from any known or proposed version of the PAK FA.

mig-31 has cruising mach 2.35 and pak -fa will supercruise for much longer at 1,8mach which is good enough.

It is nothing to do with who can fly longer... a MiG-31 could fly at supersonic speed in dry thrust much further than the PAK FA could... the thing is that at mach 2.6 the MiG-31 will get to the target and shoot it down much faster than a PAK FA could and that is the critical point.

Otherwise just buy Il-96s with a huge radar in the nose and  300 R-37Ms mounted along its belly.... much cheaper and much slower and much less effective.

On paper the PAK FA could have replaced the Su-35 and the Su-34 and the MiG-31 but it did not.

The PAK FA is a niche weapon but it will serve with the Su-35 because the Su-35 has lots of advantages over the PAK FA including 14 hardpoints for external store and lower cost. It will also serve with the Su-34 which is also able to carry weapons and equipment on 14 external stores pylons and can carry a larger warload over a greater distance. The MiG-31 is also a much better interceptor though a newer model will be developed to provide even better performance.

The PAK FA is a very good aircraft but it cannot replace the planes I mentioned above and it makes no sense to try to do so... not every mission requires a stealthy fighter.

For many missions like standoff jammer and recon and light strike it would be a very valuable aircraft.

It can replace the recon versions of the MiG and the jammer and recon models of the Fencer, and as a fighter and short to medium range theatre interceptor it will also be very potent along with Su-35s and MiG-35s.

The idea that you can save a little money by having one platform do everything is amusing... do you just carry one pen with you all day, or do you have a pencil and a couple of pens and some sort of electronic device you can write on too.

You can't always borrow what you need when you will need it.

The Aerospace defence forces will want their own aircraft, so they might as well optimise them for the roles they will be using them for. Traditionally the PVO had their own designs... SU-9/11/15/21 and Tu-128 and MiG-25 and MiG-31 but they also had MiG-29s and Su-27s.

Note the AAMs they carried had different ESM equipment and operated with different codes from the Air Force weapons... so they were actually rather more different than they appeared.

They also did a lot of work with datalinks and remote control systems...

Short takeoffs was never an issue... range... and speed were the features they wanted. They will be scanning for targets with small rcs using radar and IRST all the time so stealth has no value... they are not hiding... they are hunting down cruise missiles and stealthy bombers and large bombers with powerful jammers and ESM equipment and of course high speed recon aircraft.

They will also likely have to contend with supersonic bombers of the future so large long range missiles and high flight speed and long range capability would all be critical to their design to catch and shoot down high supersonic targets of all types. The PAK FA is not good enough...

yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

difference is mach 0,5 and pak-fa can turn on afterburner after all if needed , and with s-500 guarding high altitude its not a problem low altitude coverage is more important and harder to do in airspace defence whi.ch pak-fa with its 3 radars does much better

Rmf wrote:yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

Yes, but they COULD if required, ie if there was a real operational need.

Rmf wrote:difference is mach 0,5 and pak-fa can turn on afterburner after all if needed , and with s-500 guarding high altitude its not a problem low altitude coverage is more important and harder to do in airspace defence whi.ch pak-fa with its 3 radars does much better

The MiG-31 has a prodigious fuel load and has a much greater range at high supersonic speeds than does the Su T-50, and its airframe is optimised for high speed & high altitude.  It is simply better at long range, high altitude, fast interceptions of the sort needed to guard the long Russia frontier.  BTW the MiG flys at high altitude in order to cover territory quickly and to conserve fuel, not because its targets are at altitude (as generally, they won't be).  Get to the intercept quickly with the advantage of higher altitude, detect intruder with doppler radar (ie look down), and engage with long range AAM if needed. While a T-50 would perform such a mision adequately, the MiG excels.

The S-500 alone is not going to protect Russias airspace - it's coverage will not be complete (and you can bet the US will target the coverage gaps as entry routes for ALCM strikes).  Additionally, peace-time interceptions can't be done using missiles. Only manned aircraft have the versatility to do this, and for this duty, a rapid response to adversarial probing of distant border areas is a must.

Finally, the RuAF WANTS a modernised MiG-31 follow-on. They do not want the T-50 for this role. That should tell you something.

kvs wrote:NATO does not even have a Mig-31 analogue flying.

In truth, NATO nations do not have the same operational need that Russia has (ie a vast coastline remote from main population centers that would be vulnerable to penetration by bombers). Well, except for the Canadians, but any penetrations of their vast periphery by Russian strategic aviation will be aimed at their Overlords to the South, so I can see why the the Canucks don't go to the expense of fielding a MiG-31 equivalent..

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

Yes, but they COULD if required, ie if there was a real operational need.

.

no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

Yes, but they COULD if required, ie if there was a real operational need.

.

no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

Actually, we don't know nothing sure about PAK-FA performance and that little indication we have says otherwise: with current engines it have not enough military power thrust for F-22 like supercruise performance.

Still range that Mig-31 can achieve at its supersonic cruise speed of M 2.03 is decisively superior to the one of F-22 supercruising at M 1.8 maximum, so not let a fancy term to confuse you about the final outcome.

Rmf wrote:
no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

SAM coverage gaps are worse in the Far North, so an interceptor needs to be able to relocate quickly over long distances to meet newly detected threats, and that's were raw speed is paramount. Supercruise loiter time isn't such a factor as it will not be feasible to keep T-50s in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure round-the-clock plugging of the gaps. While a T-50 based interceptor would probably be fine in the European theatre or in the Far East at Vladivostock or the naval bases, the Far North requires more kinetic performance than the T-50 can deliver. The MiG can run steady at M2.6, sprint up to M2.8, and in an emergency, pour on the juice and hit >M3.0 (though at the cost of trashing its engines if turbine overspeed is maintained). If the T-50s are like the F-22, they will be speed limited to M1.8 in practise or risk delaminating their RAM coatings, and only capable of M2.2-2.5 as a hard dynamic limit.

Give up your pointless diatribe and just admit the MiG-31 is a superlative niche predator. The RuAF knows what it wants and it wants a MiG-31 successor, not the half-way house of a stealth jet pretending to be a fast, straight line bomber-killer. FFS, even if you don't respect the views of you fellows in this forum, show some respect to the RuAF planners.....

RMF said:

ofcourse mig-31 cant be modified to carry 6 missiles like we see

yes its a myth operational birds dont cary 6 missiles you fail - again.

You are suggesting the PAK FA replace the MiG-31... it is not operational either.

The MiG-31M was the proposed upgrade of the MiG-31.

It was considered more expensive than it needed to be at a time when there was no money to implement it anyway.

Now there is plenty of money.

The revision of the wing layout of the R-37 compared with the R-33 was to enable more missiles to be belly mounted...

difference is mach 0,5 and pak-fa can turn on afterburner after all if needed ,

even if it uses AB it is not able to fly as fast as the MiG-31 let alone any development.

and with s-500 guarding high altitude its not a problem low altitude coverage

S-500 is better used against incoming ICBM and SLBM warheads... not bombers or cruise missiles.

is more important and harder to do in airspace defence whi.ch pak-fa with its 3 radars does much better

With radar coverage over Russia having radar arrays pointing in three different directions is not that useful for an interceptor... much more use in having a big array looking forward.

Predators have two large eyes looking forward to find and range prey.... cattle and other types in the food chain have side mounted eyes with good peripheral vision to detect threats coming from any direction. An interceptor is a hunter... an air superiority fighter is also a hunter but would find good situational awareness to be useful.

no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.

The MiG-31M upgrade was an upgrade that fixed a few flight control issues (LERX improved) and added new missiles and new systems.

Re-profiling the belly to take 6 instead of 4 missiles is trivial.

i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

And with that you expose your excellent grasp of what you are talking about... if coverage of low altitudes is what it is all about WTF are you talking about the PAK FAs ability to supercruise for?

You can only supercruise at medium or high altitude... in any manned aircraft.

The PAK FA will be an excellent aircraft but will not even replace all 4th gen fighters like the MiG-35 or Su-35, let alone replace the MiG-31 or its MiG-41 replacement or even the Su-34 strike aircraft.

Get off the F-35 train.... there is no one to rule them all... that is just Tolkien.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:
no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

SAM coverage gaps are worse in the Far North, so an interceptor needs to be able to relocate quickly over long distances to meet newly detected threats, and that's were raw speed is paramount.  Supercruise loiter time isn't such a factor as it will not be feasible to keep T-50s in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure round-the-clock plugging of the gaps.  While a T-50 based interceptor would probably be fine in the European theatre or in the Far East at Vladivostock or the naval bases, the Far North requires more kinetic performance than the T-50 can deliver.  The MiG can run steady at M2.6, sprint up to M2.8, and in an emergency, pour on the juice and hit >M3.0 (though at the cost of trashing its engines if turbine overspeed is maintained). If the T-50s are like the F-22, they will be speed limited to M1.8 in practise or risk delaminating their RAM coatings, and only capable of M2.2-2.5 as a hard dynamic limit.

Give up your pointless diatribe and just admit the MiG-31 is a superlative niche predator.  The RuAF knows what it wants and it wants a MiG-31 successor, not the half-way house of a stealth jet pretending to be a fast, straight line bomber-killer. FFS, even if you don't respect the views of you fellows in this forum, show some respect to the RuAF planners.....

that hypothetical mig-41 will eat into pak-fa budget massively and less pak=fa units will be made.
wants and gets are 2 different things.
if we look at what opponents are fielding pak-fa is good enough for the task , and in more massive numbers you can have more dispersed units closer to each other, and actually better coverage.
we will see what will the pak-fa maximum speed be with new engines ,stealth is not a priority so it wont be a speed limiting factor in interceptor version of pak-fa.

Rmf wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Rmf wrote:
no they cant ,airframe of used birds cant be modified, they need completely new airframes if they want that.
i am sure airforce wants hypersonic mega ultra stealth bomber but reality is different- no money.
coverage gaps are in the low altitudes man thats where alcm is going and pak fa is better at supercruise loiter time- period.

SAM coverage gaps are worse in the Far North, so an interceptor needs to be able to relocate quickly over long distances to meet newly detected threats, and that's were raw speed is paramount.  Supercruise loiter time isn't such a factor as it will not be feasible to keep T-50s in the air in sufficient numbers to ensure round-the-clock plugging of the gaps.  While a T-50 based interceptor would probably be fine in the European theatre or in the Far East at Vladivostock or the naval bases, the Far North requires more kinetic performance than the T-50 can deliver.  The MiG can run steady at M2.6, sprint up to M2.8, and in an emergency, pour on the juice and hit >M3.0 (though at the cost of trashing its engines if turbine overspeed is maintained). If the T-50s are like the F-22, they will be speed limited to M1.8 in practise or risk delaminating their RAM coatings, and only capable of M2.2-2.5 as a hard dynamic limit.

Give up your pointless diatribe and just admit the MiG-31 is a superlative niche predator.  The RuAF knows what it wants and it wants a MiG-31 successor, not the half-way house of a stealth jet pretending to be a fast, straight line bomber-killer. FFS, even if you don't respect the views of you fellows in this forum, show some respect to the RuAF planners.....

that hypothetical mig-41 will eat into pak-fa budget massively and less pak=fa units will be made.
wants and gets are 2 different things.
if we look at what opponents are fielding pak-fa is good enough for the task , and in more massive numbers you can have more dispersed units closer to each other, and actually better coverage.
we will see what will the pak-fa maximum speed be with new engines ,stealth is not a priority so it wont be a speed limiting factor in interceptor version of pak-fa.

What budget? seems me that you think that you are simply transferring the western way of designing, developing and producing planes into russian.
They simply doesn't work like that.
There is not actually any fixed order or allocated budget for PAK-Fa acquisition, just a intention of acquiring 12 1st serial planes to equip a training unit and even when serial production would began they would sign a different contract for any batch like they have always done.
There is nothing like a long term fixed acquisition program in russian practises.
Add that PAK-FA and the MiG-41will pertain to two completely different branches of aerospace forces (and that the planes that they would eventually substituted was ordered by two then completely separated armed forces)to understand how the idea of a competition over budgets between them just doesn't exist.
PAK-FA is actually with Su-35S, MiG-35 and Mi-28NM in the frontal aviation, while the MiG-31/41 would be listed with S-400 , S-500 and Ad radars instead in the aereospace defence forces.

I'm inclined to believe that the Mig-41 will be a much needed replacement due to aformentioned long range patrol. But I also really hope that it will be agressively marketed. The achievement of creating a manned hypersonic interceptor will be a massive matter of prestige that will discredit retarded American hypersonic drone vaporware.

A massive speed will also increase the flight speed and range of existing BVR missiles due to the aircraft's speed adding to the missile's, thus imrpoving the performance of Russian weaponry.

Is there any chance that the Mig-41 might use more than 2 engines?

What is the chance of it being a flying wing?

Also, i wonder why the russians can build mach 3+ capable engines since the 60s but cant build an equivalent to the F-22's engine. Is miniaturization the problem?

Is it possible that the Mig-41 will mount a cannon? Given that it will travel almost as fast as a 30mm shell there might be a danger of it hitting itself.