PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

Hole wrote:The MiG-25 and later MiG-31 were limited to M2,8 because of higher maintenance costs and shorter service life of the engines and the airframe, which could be damaged by overheating. One MiG-25 reached a speed of 3.400km/h as a few were stationed in Egypt, back in the 70´s.

that was actually TV Zvezda's "leak about" I presume: now they can fly 3400km/h

Someone claimed the MiG-41 could possibly leave the atmosphere and travel trough space. The ultimate short cut.

[/quote]

CEO of MiG AFAIK. Although not confirmed I'd say more about mesosphere and on ballistic trajectory as Virgin or Space One ships. I dont thingmore then PGS flies -50-90 km what ense would it make? Not sure about heat materials it would have to be built from...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:That's what I said only plans for PAK DP. Yes MiG is working on tis own but there is no independent MiG anymore. there is part os Rostekh isnt it? BTW MiGs-31 wont last more beyond 2030 so time is short really to get new interceptors.

That is only until the production line of the -31 gets restarted
But they must turn its engines into partial ramjets so that Garry does not get annoyed

GunshipDemocracy wrote:As for threats- once they are fielded you're like 10-15 years too late... You know what Us requiremnts and cocnepts are, what is technology in 10-15 years and your own also. so it is realistically feasible to figure out what are requirements.

Well, the requirements for the threats are pipe dreams and bluffs to a great extent... it is risky to rush headlong into developing the next superweapon to counter them.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Perhaps this "extra" 2thousands km/h can add dynamic ceiling from 30 till 80-100 kms? Not to mention new level to technology for hypersonic transport/planes?

You are very kindly giving them 2.000 km/h for the price of 1 M aren't you? Never mind, they need to be much faster than stated until now to be hypersonic or to go to near space... more progress is needed!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Cyrillic , as those characters on calculator mangers and consultants always avoid

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Hmm mesh can heat of course air but this is not about temperature but heat transfer, right? with mesh it is hard to imagine adiabatic expnasion ti si more like grill on steroids.
More dense mash? mesh and you have problems with air flow.

Perhaps microwave pulses to heat up air in explosive ways (adiabatic heating inshort) ? you got but that's the rocket science beyond my knowledge :-)

You would need a very effective way of transmitting the heat to the gas without slowing it down. Microwave are used in fusion reactors to heat plasma but I guess they would not work on gasses which are not charged electrically. I also cannot go into much further into the specifics of those issues out of the top of my head, a good start point for the research would be Project Pluto

Russia does not currently have scramjet missiles in its equipment. They only test Cirkon, and nothing is known about it.

Kinzhal is supposedly operational, and Zircon is very close.

This means it can fly 3,2Ma... constant speed (944 ms right? Ma=2,95,4)

The Mach 2.83 top speed was a limit of the engines... specifically the fan blades over heating issues.

With newer blades able to operate at higher temperatures and to survive higher rotational speeds the top speed might have increased...

Eustace jumped form baloon on 41kms so there is air there

You are not understanding what I was saying.

A zoom climb allows a plane to operate for a short period at a height it would not normally be able to fly at... but not because it is a vacuum.

These high speed aircraft have very thin wings optimised to generate lift to keep the aircraft in the air, but also for very low drag at high speed.

Just because it can zoom climb to 37km doesn't mean above that height is no air, it just means the air at more than 30km or so is too thin to support a MiG flying at max speed in level flight, so to get to that height or higher it needs to perform a special manouver called a zoom climb.

It is not unique... the F-15 needed to do that too to intercept high flying fast MiG-25s in the Middle East... F-4s with Sparrows were not good enough... they needed the faster higher flying F-15 for the job.

In the same sense you would need a MiG-25 to intercept an SR-71 and for the same reasons a MiG-23 would likely not be good enough for the job.

Spaceship one with speed of 3,500 km/h can have ballistic ceiling about 100 km although is rocket propelled.

Rockets don't use lifting surfaces like wings to keep them airborne, so their ceiling is based on rocket thrust... not speed.

I dont think 100 km is any fetish here. More important is fighting satellites, PGS (flying 50-90 kms) and X-37 kind of intruders. Perhaps also bombing of enemy CVS. Kind of modified Kinzhal fired form 50km can possibly fly 4,000km or so.

More likely 2,500-3,000km I would say... the rocket booster would get it up to a higher speed than at lower altitudes as there is less friction/drag and it would not need to climb at all... with smart fuel control that should greatly reduce the amount of fuel used to climb and accelerate, which can then be used for efficient cruise flight... which should be excellent for extending range.

Spaceship One with 3000 km/h got to 112 km ceiling

Key is in the title... Space ship one. MiGs are air breathing jets...

So GarryB, all the legacy subsonic cruise missiles that Russia still has, that are powered by TURBOJET ENGINES, can they be refit with Ram Jet or Scram Jet when these missiles are upgraded or will new TURBOJET engines be used to replace the old ones ?

Supersonic flight at low altitude takes an enormous amount of fuel, so for most existing cruise missiles adding ramjets would make the engine slightly lighter, but I don't think it would increase speed or performance all that much.

I think it would be more valuable to develop very high speed missiles like Kinzhal, that could be used to hit air bases and SAM sites and command centres to make penetration of the air defences much easier for the subsonic missiles that follow behind.

Eventually a pulse detonation design could be adapted to existing types to increase the thrust so a lower thrust and fuel burn rate could achieve increases in range, but as most are subsonic I don't think it makes sense to try to turn them into supersonic missiles... the other changes needed to flight controls and nose cones would mean a lot of expense for little practical gain... to fly supersonic they could not hug the ground...

Flying faster means flying higher so they lose their low penetration advantages and you introduce heat issues... flying faster generates more heat that must be dealt with.

If they do upgrade older missiles I suspect it will only to be with more fuel efficient engines that extend range rather than increase speed.

Again, MiG-31 is already almost a 3 M plane (even more as you point out). That is not critically slow IMHO even when it is clear that the faster the better.

Well the MiG-25 was a mach 2.83 plane too and it had an 11 ton thrust engine... there was talk of fitting it with the 15 ton thrust engine of the MiG-31 but they went with the MiG-31 instead...

MiG-31 and MiG-25 were engine limited to Mach 2.83 to prevent damage to the engines...

Improvements should increase the speed limits I would expect.

So this is quite old... but still apparently complex,

Well ramjets predate WWII but talk of ramjet powered missiles is not talked about as being old technology really... and V-1 buzzbombs used pulse detonation engines so they aren't new either... it is new for Russia.

Certainly, but this part of making the combustion supersonic is where the technology is still apparently stuck at. That is why PDE is crucial.

If the goal is mach 4.2 then scramjets are not needed... they can be a block 5 upgrade in 10-15 years time.

For now a turbofan/ramjet motor should be quite straightforward... the hard issues are dealing with the heat...

It seems you suggest the combustion in a rocket is not subsonic, am I right or did I misunderstood you?

I don't know for sure.... normally propellant needs to burn rather than detonate, but some propellants spontaneously explode when they come into contact with each other...

Replace gun powder with HE in a normal rifle bullet and destroy the gun and injure the operator... a CIA trick during the Vietnam war... to try to undermine confidence in Soviet supplied equipment... I am sure all those American soldiers who picked up AKs because their government issue rifle wasn't working appreciated that...

Exactly the point of the detonation engine. You can theoretically move all the way from subsonic to highly hypersonic since as you said you do not need anymore to slow down the incoming air. From the interview posted by GunshipDemocracy:

You are saying pulse detonation engines can get us to orbital speeds, but scramjets will do that too... and turbofans will be needed to get from the hangar down the runway and into the air...

PD might improve the performance of a turbofan, but not to the point where a ramjet or scramjet is going to be less efficient I don't think...

... nuclear things tend to be difficult to handle you know!

Actually thankfully I don't know...

There was a big US cruise missile developed in the 50s or 60s that was nuclear powered... a nuclear powered ramjet... it flew at mach 3 at very low level and had two propulsion options... a clean model where a material was superheated by the reactor and was then pumped into the engine to superheat the air as it went through, and a dirty model where the fuel rods directly heated the air.

This was a big missile and flying at almost a kilometre a second the shockwave from the missiles flight could kill people and damage buildings on the ground... the dirty propulsion would also irradiate the air as it passed.

Being nuclear powered it could fly for years and could carry... I think about 24 small nuclear warheads that were ejected up in flight and slowed by parachute to then drop to the ground... by the time it landed and exploded the missile would be out of the blast radius and continuing to its next target.

They never built it.... deeming it too dangerous... because they knew the other side would develop the same thing.

Yes I understand the advantages of speed, only say that a 30% increase in speed is not bringing the weapon into another category capable of countering i.e. hypersonic threats, even more if the range is not very big. Still unsure about the project, what requirements, basic technologies and actual time frame will end up being implemented dunno

The 31 is getting older and is very useful... so its capabilities need to be provided by something else... PAK FA is not fast enough and would be too expensive anyway. MiG-41 is a from scratch new design that will likely do the same job rather better in several ways... what is not to like?

Perhaps this "extra" 2thousands km/h can add dynamic ceiling from 30 till 80-100 kms? Not to mention new level to technology for hypersonic transport/planes?

As I was trying to say it is not all about speed... the SR-71 normally operated at Mach 3.2 and there is no evidence it could fly any faster, though there are claims of 3.5 but I have not seen any real evidence to confirm that... the SR-71 is a very long aircraft that is rather unbalanced and unable to operate at very high altitudes... it never tried to beat the MiG-25s 37.5km altitude record because at higher altitudes its front would likely have stalled and its nose plunged and possibly destroyed the aircraft if it had tried.

Its altitude limit is something like 80,000ft which is not really that high at all. 37,500m is something like 116,000ft.

Hmm mesh can heat of course air but this is not about temperature but heat transfer, right? with mesh it is hard to imagine adiabatic expnasion ti si more like grill on steroids.
More dense mash? mesh and you have problems with air flow.

Not mesh like a screen door to stop bugs getting into your house or a pot scrubbing pad... but something that encourages air flow, with maximum surface area for heat transfer from the mesh to the air as it passes through...

Someone claimed the MiG-41 could possibly leave the atmosphere and travel trough space. The ultimate short cut.

Lots of problems there too... there was talk of a long range super high speed airliner that used rockets that left the atmosphere and hit the atmosphere at very shallow angles so it skipped along the atmosphere like a stone skipping on water...

problem is that these aircraft are moving very very fast and the atmosphere is not perfectly uniform... you could clip a bulge that hits a wing and spins you... no air resistance and no airflow keeping you nose forward so clipping the wing could spin the plane terribly so when it came to the next skip contact you could be at any angle and with no way to reorient yourself... eventually you will lose enough speed to no skip and to instead plunge down into the atmosphere... going sideways at mach 4... let alone 6km/s will rip your aircraft apart...

As I mentioned above a zoom climb to max your altitude.... that is what you would have to do to pop out of the atmosphere... but the thing is that at such altitudes the air is rather thin anyway so the aircraft outside the atmosphere could coast indefinitely without slowing down... but with no conventional assistance from the engines... so moving fast using no fuel is good... until you drop back down into the air and have to restart your engines to maintain speed...

the thing is only the very top of the parabola will you get this free ride... I just wonder if it is worth it...

That is only until the production line of the -31 gets restarted

Why restart MiG-31 production when you can start MiG-41 production with a new from scratch design and all new materials and production capability... not to mention computer aided design and testing...

Well, the requirements for the threats are pipe dreams and bluffs to a great extent... it is risky to rush headlong into developing the next superweapon to counter them.

Mach 4.2 is not a super technology... they could probably do it right now... using turbofans and ramjets... but what they can do with a totally from scratch design minimise the amount of surface area needing to take enormous temperatures and optimise the airframe for very very high speeds so in 10 years time when that pulse detonation turbofanscramjet engine makes much faster speeds possible they can make minor modifications and add it... something they certainly could not do with a slightly modernised new build MiG-31.

You are very kindly giving them 2.000 km/h for the price of 1 M aren't you? Very Happy Never mind, they need to be much faster than stated until now to be hypersonic or to go to near space... more progress is needed!

At beyond mach 5 you get body lift so wing lift is no longer important...

GarryB wrote:

It seems you suggest the combustion in a rocket is not subsonic, am I right or did I misunderstood you?

I don't know for sure.... normally propellant needs to burn rather than detonate, but some propellants spontaneously explode when they come into contact with each other...

You have this in the interview posted with the Russian expert:

Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation burning is 25 percent more effective, than an isobaric cycle, sootvetstvetstvuyushchy to combustion of fuel with a constant pressure which is realized in cameras modern liquid рактивных engines

GarryB wrote:You are saying pulse detonation engines can get us to orbital speeds, but scramjets will do that too... and turbofans will be needed to get from the hangar down the runway and into the air...

PD might improve the performance of a turbofan, but not to the point where a ramjet or scramjet is going to be less efficient I don't think...

Is the other way around IMHO, this technology will allow to make scramjets feasible.

GarryB wrote:There was a big US cruise missile developed in the 50s or 60s that was nuclear powered...

Project Pluto right? I wanted to read a bit about it, thanks for the information.

GarryB wrote:The 31 is getting older and is very useful... so its capabilities need to be provided by something else... PAK FA is not fast enough and would be too expensive anyway. MiG-41 is a from scratch new design that will likely do the same job rather better in several ways... what is not to like?

Only the bill

GarryB wrote:

Someone claimed the MiG-41 could possibly leave the atmosphere and travel trough space. The ultimate short cut.

As I mentioned above a zoom climb to max your altitude.... that is what you would have to do to pop out of the atmosphere... but the thing is that at such altitudes the air is rather thin anyway so the aircraft outside the atmosphere could coast indefinitely without slowing down... but with no conventional assistance from the engines... so moving fast using no fuel is good... until you drop back down into the air and have to restart your engines to maintain speed...

the thing is only the very top of the parabola will you get this free ride... I just wonder if it is worth it...

This is the ultimate strategic carrier, anti satellite and ABM means so a big yes I would say!

GarryB wrote:Why restart MiG-31 Tu-160 production when you can start MiG-41PAK-DA production with a new from scratch design and all new materials and production capability... not to mention computer aided design and testing...

GarryB wrote:Mach 4.2 is not a super technology... they could probably do it right now... using turbofans and ramjets... but what they can do with a totally from scratch design minimise the amount of surface area needing to take enormous temperatures and optimise the airframe for very very high speeds so in 10 years time when that pulse detonation turbofanscramjet engine makes much faster speeds possible they can make minor modifications and add it... something they certainly could not do with a slightly modernised new build MiG-31.

I can repeat the question ad nauseam: what current threat makes the MiG-31 obsolete? Overhauling old -31 airframes is also possible, as modernising engines, and it would be cheaper than a new plane. The point of the MiG-41 IMHO is the technological leap to be hypersonic, the engine retrofit you propose may be possible but the challenges and needs of one flight regime and the other are different. So extremely risky to develop a plane that will receive a completely different engine technology and will fly much faster in the future, without knowing how those engines will work and being able to even fly test at those speeds... no way. In my ignorance I see no hurry developing the -41 unless a novel propulsion appears. Interesting times ahead

eehnie wrote:The problem with the MiG-25/31 is not a problem of obsolescence, is a problem of mechanical exhaustion. It happened with the aircrafts of the MiG-25 variant, and will happen with the aircrafts of the MiG-31 variant. The production of the MiG-25/31 was stopped in 1994. The next year, the youngest MiG-25/31 will be of 25 years old.

I see, thanks for the information.
Don't know how exhausted the airframes are to be honest and what can be done to delay the point when they cannot be operated anymore.

eehnie wrote:Repair, overhauling, restoration of old airframes will be done obviously, but still there is a mechanical limit, and there is a fleet to mantain. By the moment when the available and restorable units of MiG-25/31 fall under the level of active fleet + saturation of the reserve, a production of new aircrafts must begin, and taking into account that a production of a new model will give to the Russian Aerospace Forces and to the Russian Naval Aviation interesting and useful features over the Mig-25/31 level, what is the problem with the development of the MiG-41? Russia is doing it, Russia is paying it, Russia will have the first fly of the new aircraft by 2025 and Russia will have serial production of the MiG-41 by the moment when by mechanical exhaustion the MiG-25/31 can not reach to cover the active fleet + a saturation of the reserve fleet.

Russia moves forward. All right. Zero problem.

You talk as if I had some problem with Russia moving forward. You also talk as if the MiG-41 project was defined, requirements closed and funds granted. Let me quote what you posted here some days ago:

https://militaryarms.ru/voennaya-texnika/aviaciya/mig-41/

MiG-41 is to be a completely new construction, not a modernized MiG-31 (in the picture) / Photo: MO FR – Obecnie jesteśmy na ostatnim etapie finalizacji projektu, który będzie całkowicie nową konstrukcją, a nie zmodernizowanym MiGiem-31 – podkreślił Tarasenko ( 6 kolejnych MiG-31BSM w linii , 2017-04-04).

- We are currently at the final stage of the project finalization, which will be a completely new construction, not a modernized MiG-31 - emphasized Tarasenko.

- It will be a completely new plane, capable of operating in the Arctic and space, constructed using modern technologies that will serve to defend the entire country. In the future, we will transform it into an unmanned flying vehicle - added the head of the RSK MiG.

The MiG-41 is to develop the M4-4.3 speed and be armed with a laser to shoot down enemy missiles. According to Tarasenka, if the buyer (WKS FR) decides to buy new aircraft, the serial MiGi-41 can be available as soon as 2025 (the MiG-31 successor only in 2025 , 2014-08-13).

Where do we start with?
> Available in the series in 2025
> Lasers
> Operate in the space

Add to it other sources claiming it will be also stealthy. Some other source mentioned that it was not clear whether it would operate in space or not. And MiG has the design almost ready?

All I am saying is this is far from being a closed issue and that I see inconsistencies in the claims and requirements. And that dates hold no water whatsoever. Part of this can be disinformation from Russian military maybe but I have no way of knowing

In any case, the plane will be developed eventually and I will be the first to celebrate it!

LMFS wrote:

Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation burning is 25 percent more effective, than an isobaric cycle, sootvetstvetstvuyushchy to combustion of fuel with a constant pressure which is realized in cameras modern liquid рактивных engines

Sorry but google sucks in translations, let me to reword this translation:

Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation burning is 25 percent more effective, than an isobaric cycle, corresponding to combustion of fuel with a constant pressure which is realized in combustion chambers of modern liquid rocket engines

I can repeat the question ad nauseam: what current threat makes the MiG-31 obsolete? Overhauling old -31 airframes is also possible, as modernising engines, and it would be cheaper than a new plane. The point of the MiG-41 IMHO is the technological leap to be hypersonic, the engine retrofit you propose may be possible but the challenges and needs of one flight regime and the other are different. So extremely risky to develop a plane that will receive a completely different engine technology and will fly much faster in the future, without knowing how those engines will work and being able to even fly test at those speeds... no way. In my ignorance I see no hurry developing the -41 unless a novel propulsion appears. Interesting times ahead

Why to develop PAK-FA when Su-30 is so good? Why to develop Armata if T-90AM is good enough? this is calle dprogress. New model s dont have to be by order og magnitude better. They need to be better enough to meet new threats.

GarryB wrote:

This means it can fly 3,2Ma... constant speed  (944 ms right? Ma=2,95,4)

The Mach 2.83 top speed was a limit of the engines... specifically the fan blades over heating issues.

With newer blades able to operate at higher temperatures and to survive higher rotational speeds the top speed might have increased...

You didnt get idea = 2,83 Ma is still 3000km/h just your math sucks calculation didnt take into account of changing speed at this height       and you said like 2,6 Ma

Eustace jumped form baloon on 41kms so there is air there

You are not understanding what I was saying.
A zoom climb allows a plane to operate for a short period at a height it would not normally be able to fly at... but not because it is a vacuum.

If I dotn understand you dont get idea either. Lets start from beginning.

No vacuum  means you dont need rocket but still use your ramjet/scramjet engines right? Spaceshipone used rocked engine but also drag to lift. Was not vertical rocket,only one  horizontal nozzle inline with main frame. Ergo - there must have been lift force wings also used.

My idea is not that plane can fly horizontal fight on 40km or so.  The "near space " stuff is meant to be  can fly ballistic but still be powered by  air breathing engines.



Check this out: Ramjets till mach 8 and ~50kms scramjets Ma 15/75 km. Mind: theoretical limit for engines not planes.
https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2099.1/20295/Technical%20Report.pdf

I dont think 100 km is any fetish here. More important is fighting satellites, PGS (flying 50-90 kms) and X-37 kind of intruders. Perhaps also bombing of enemy CVS. Kind of modified Kinzhal fired form 50km can possibly fly 4,000km or so.

More likely 2,500-3,000km I would say... the rocket booster would get it up to a higher speed than at lower altitudes as there is less friction/drag and it would not need to climb at all... with smart fuel control that should greatly reduce the amount of fuel used to climb and accelerate, which can then be used for efficient cruise flight... which should be excellent for extending range.

Spaceship One with 3000 km/h got to 112 km ceiling

BTW airbreathng PDE can fly to Ma-5-6 , is mechanically simple and beats turbo-engines in all phases of  flight. Only problem with start... rocket mode? assisted start?
I dont know, time is tight -only 12 years fo rstarrt fielding new interceptor so new engine I mean ramjet/PDE is very risky. Form the other hand perhaps something is already in labs on test benches?

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:That's what I said only plans for PAK DP.  Yes MiG is working on tis own but there is no independent MiG anymore. there is part os Rostekh isnt it? BTW MiGs-31 wont last more beyond 2030 so time is short really to get new interceptors.

That is only until the production line of the -31 gets restarted

Unless Mig 31n BM conversion you call restarting production then yes.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:As for threats- once they are fielded you're like 10-15 years too late... You know what Us requiremnts and cocnepts are, what is technology in 10-15 years and your own also. so it is realistically feasible to figure out what are requirements.

Well, the requirements for the threats are pipe dreams and bluffs to a great extent... it is risky to rush headlong into developing the next superweapon to counter them.

B-21 or hypersonic missiles ? the question is not if but when only. X-37 is already a reality. Dont you think that Russian military dont check feasibility of any project + intel data to asses risks?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Perhaps this "extra" 2thousands km/h  can add dynamic ceiling from 30 till 80-100 kms? Not to mention new level to technology for hypersonic transport/planes?

You are very kindly giving them 2.000 km/h for the price of 1 M aren't you? Never mind, they need to be much faster than stated until now to be hypersonic or to go to near space... more progress is needed!

MiG-31 flies with max 3000 according to aviable data now. new on should fly with 4,300-5000. 5000-3000 = ? according to you?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Hmm mesh can heat of course air but this is not about temperature but heat transfer, right? with mesh it is hard to imagine adiabatic expnasion ti si more like grill on steroids.
More dense mash? mesh and you have problems with air flow.

Perhaps microwave pulses to heat up air in explosive ways (adiabatic heating inshort) ? you got but that's the rocket science beyond my knowledge :-)

You would need a very effective way of transmitting the heat to the gas without slowing it down. Microwave are used in fusion reactors to heat plasma but I guess they would not work on gasses which are not charged electrically. I also cannot go into much further into the specifics of those issues out of the top of my head, a good start point for the research would be Project Pluto

not thet things arent moving but source of enrgy is still to be found or nuclear reactors minimized. So for new interceptor it wont matter anyway.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288798803_Investigation_of_Magneto-Plasma_Compressors_with_Internal_Initiation_to_Develop_High_Momentum_Pulsed_Plasma_Jet_Actuators_for_Flow_Control

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-world-first-air-breathing-electric-thruster.html


BTW lose this ignition sound :-)))

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Unless Mig 31n BM conversion you call restarting production then yes.

I would not put my head on the block for the line not being restarted, the Tu-160 comes to mind...
Edit: there are apparently quite a few units in the reserve. I don't know how many hours those airframes have left but in case they are usable the situation would be different as with the Tu-160

GunshipDemocracy wrote:B-21 or hypersonic missiles ? the question is not if but when only. X-37 is already a reality. Dont you think that Russian military dont check feasibility of any project + intel data to asses risks?

Certainly. I just think the MiG-31 is still an unmatched airframe that can cope with a B-21. X-37 cannot be tackled by -31 or -41 unless a proper weapon is developed that they can launch (not sure if any ASAT weapon already operational in Russia). Like said I would wait for a new propulsion so that the -41 can be hypersonic, rushing it with the existing technology for a small improvement can be beneficial but also short lived, we are close to ramjets scramjets being developed.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:MiG-31 flies with max 3000 according to aviable data now. new on should fly with 4,300-5000. 5000-3000 = ? according to you?

I am going to take speed of sound @11.000 m ca. 295 m/s (maybe you have a better value, this is the one I found first and should do for a rough approximation)
2.83 M = 3.005 km/h
4 M = 4.248 km/h
4.3 M = 4.566 km/h

Do you have the values of sound speed at flight height of MiG-31 and expected for MiG-41? That could change those values above

GunshipDemocracy wrote:not thet things arent moving but source of enrgy is still to be found or nuclear reactors minimized. So for new interceptor it wont matter anyway.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288798803_Investigation_of_Magneto-Plasma_Compressors_with_Internal_Initiation_to_Develop_High_Momentum_Pulsed_Plasma_Jet_Actuators_for_Flow_Control

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-world-first-air-breathing-electric-thruster.html


BTW lose this ignition sound :-)))

Agree, not probably happening any time soon in a manned aircraft. Interesting stuff, will take a look

What was that sound??? Is it real?

eehnie wrote:I glad to read. There is people here that really has a problem with Russia moving forward. They are always in the negative side in every topic that treats about the most technologically advanced military projects of Russia, and instead they promote high production of low armed weapons that really do not make a difference.

About the MiG-41 project, we can say that goes forward under the new State Armament Program, and is in development. Exact features that will reach can not be known now, but we can expect important improvements over the MiG-25/31 after 50 (by 2025) of working in the MiG design bureau.

The links that I posted in the previous messages (not only this one that you quoted here) are interesting in order to have a right opinion of the current status of the project.

Well, since Russia has to bank all the military expenses out of a real world-economy, it is obvious that the financial constrains for development of new projects are extreme. This can lead to a certain pessimism if you want to compare with US and their exorbitant advantage of having the reserve currency and financial institutions.

Not my case, I consider this restriction actually an advantage that strongly limits the number of projects conceived out of non realistic approaches and happy engineering. Only solid, 100% necessary projects will end up being pursued and that is very good.

In the case of the MiG-41 I think the requirements still are going to consolidate quite a bit before we see a result. That is ok, they still have a huge advantage in terms of interceptors to anyone else.

Will check out those links, thanks

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation burning is 25 percent more effective, than an isobaric cycle, sootvetstvetstvuyushchy to combustion of fuel with a constant pressure which is realized in cameras modern liquid рактивных engines

Sorry but google sucks in translations, let me to reword this translation:

Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation burning is 25 percent more effective, than an isobaric cycle, corresponding to combustion of fuel with a constant pressure which is realized in combustion chambers of modern liquid rocket engines

Thanks! Wow, "sootvetstvetstvuyushchy" is a remarkably economic way to say "correspondingly" isn't it?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Why to develop PAK-FA when Su-30 is so good? Why to develop Armata if T-90AM is good enough? this is calle dprogress. New model s dont have to be by order og magnitude better. They need to be better enough to meet new threats.

I'm happy that you mention those, they make my argument easier

> PAK-FA:
When this project was started US was close to commissioning of F-22 and in full development of JSF. China was also active in the area of 5th gen. fighters. Propulsion, LO, avionics, production etc etc and all their associated technologies in Russia were lagging notably behind the state of the art due to so many years of underfunding. Therefore it was necessary both to catch up in terms of deploying a new fighter and also bring the whole industry forward. For me PAK-FA project makes full sense. Nevertheless you can see that Russia is not in a hurry to field the Su-57 at all. They just want not to fall so far behind that they lose the competitive edge for their fighter industry, this is not only needed for defence but also for exports.

> Armata:
The T-90 is very cost effective but it is in the end a development of the T-72. Anyway you can also see how little stressed they are to field the Armata, in fact they are rather modernising the T-72 to B3 version than producing Armatas...

Working on the MiG-41 is fully justified, in the sense of exploring and funding propulsion technologies, making preliminary studies and discussing requirements and roles. Freezing requirements and going full throttle for the development seems a little premature to me, since the -31 is still head and shoulders above any other interceptor in the world and is still getting new roles and features. But that is just my opinion based on the little information that I have

One additional point: please consider how many years we hear of new plans and disruptive developments. For most of these new developments we have been waiting for the most part of this decade, with very little progress. That is how these things work and rightfully so. Only 100% justified and robustly supported projects should go ahead.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW airbreathng PDE can fly to Ma-5-6 , is mechanically simple and beats turbo-engines in all phases of  flight. Only problem with start... rocket mode? assisted start?
I dont know, time is tight -only 12 years fo rstarrt fielding new interceptor so new engine I mean ramjet/PDE is very risky. Form the other hand perhaps something is already in labs on test benches?

From what I am understanding the start of an air-breathing PDE engine would be as a normal turbojet, no assistance needed.
First successfully controlled detonations were reported end of last year, so I would assume at least 20 years until an aircraft based on that propulsion principles can be fielded with the military... being optimistic

The point of the MiG-41 would be that it can leave the atmosphere anytime and fly trough space. That´s why they are talking about a engine that can switch between air-breathing and rocket mode. Back in the 90´s there was a european civil project called Hermes. Start and land like a plane, fly trough space.

I suspect it is a translation error and what they mean is a turbofan/ramjet variable cycle engine... there would be little to no advantage to flying in space...

So these sub sonic missiles, do they have a "use by date", say 10 yrs, 15 yrs ? If yes, does the entire missile, especially the TURBO JET engine, have to be overhauled at the end of that time period ?

I would suspect if stored properly they could be kept for decades... likely without fuel if in long term storage.

Of course like anything, when you take it out of storage, you check it... rubber seals don't always last, and of course batteries need to be checked... for long term storage they would likely just be removed... and of course for long term storage the turbojets would have liquid fuel which would be removed for storage, but apart from that they would not need overhauling... they are generally quite simple because they only have to work for a few hours and then they are destroyed, so they are simple and even a bit or wear and tear wont matter much...

Project Pluto right?

That is the one...

Only the bill

Actually I think the technology and know how they develop with this aircraft will be rather valuable, but I also think the final aircraft will be cheaper, yet more effective in the interception role than any version of PAK FA could manage.

This is the ultimate strategic carrier, anti satellite and ABM means so a big yes I would say!

The thing is that there is a lot of danger in actually leaving the earths atmosphere... an aircraft launching a missile at 40km altitude would be a new world altitude record for an air breathing aircraft, but any missile it launched from that altitude will have 99% of the advantages of a missile launched in space, but a fraction of the problems associated with trying to do that for the aircraft...

Why restart MiG-31 Tu-160 production when you can start MiG-41PAK-DA production with a new from scratch design and all new materials and production capability... not to mention computer aided design and testing...

Except the Tu-160 is not the same thing as the PAK DA... the PAK DA will replace the subsonic Bear, and the supersonic theatre bomber Backfire...

The MIG-41 is a direct replacement for the MiG-31... when the MiG-41 starts entering service the MiG-31s will be withdrawn, while Tu-160 and PAK DA will operate together for the next half century most likely.

I can repeat the question ad nauseam: what current threat makes the MiG-31 obsolete? Overhauling old -31 airframes is also possible, as modernising engines, and it would be cheaper than a new plane.

It is heavy and expensive, and its design reaches back to the 1950s.

Upgrading old models is cheaper than designing a whole new plane, but the new plane will be more capable and easier to keep in service and up to date.

The point of the MiG-41 IMHO is the technological leap to be hypersonic, the engine retrofit you propose may be possible but the challenges and needs of one flight regime and the other are different.

Over mach 5 is considered hypersonic, the MiG-41 is only going to be a mach 4.2 aircraft which makes the issues like engines and heat much more sensible and relatively not so excessively expensive for current technologies.

The new design can be optimised for very high speed so in 10 years time they can start on new scramjet engines that can make it go faster...

So extremely risky to develop a plane that will receive a completely different engine technology and will fly much faster in the future, without knowing how those engines will work and being able to even fly test at those speeds... no way. In my ignorance I see no hurry developing the -41 unless a novel propulsion appears. Interesting times ahead.

If you don't explore new technologies they will remain expensive and inaccessible... just keep using MiG-25s... they had 11 ton thrust engines.... with the 15 ton thrust engines from the MiG-31 they would be much faster and much better performing...

Russia moves forward. All right. Zero problem.

X2

Don't know how exhausted the airframes are to be honest and what can be done to delay the point when they cannot be operated anymore.

Most of the first articles about the MiG-41 mention that the MiG-31s will start to leave service in 2028 or so... they also mention they are excellent tools that do a fantastic job that an Su-35 or Su-57 would be unlikely to do the same...

Add to it other sources claiming it will be also stealthy. Some other source mentioned that it was not clear whether it would operate in space or not. And MiG has the design almost ready?

Not much point in being stealthy... its frontal surfaces will glow orange in real life normal digital video let alone in thermal channels, and it will be using a rather powerful radar to detect targets and threats so stealth would be bloody pointless, yet would drive up costs.

You didnt get idea = 2,83 Ma is still 3000km/h just your math sucks calculation didnt take into account of changing speed at this height Cool Cool Cool and you said like 2,6 Ma

Well sucks boo to you too... I didn't say whether it was indicated air speed or ground speed either did I?

Mach is a constant figure... otherwise what meaning does mach 4.1-4.3 mean for the MiG-41?

When it enters space the speed of sound is 0km/h, so its mach speed should become infinite... is that really a practical way of talking?

The "near space " stuff is meant to be can fly ballistic but still be powered by air breathing engines.

But near space means no air, so to power it, where does the air breathing engines get its air from?

GarryB wrote:I suspect it is a translation error and what they mean is a turbofan/ramjet variable cycle engine... there would be little to no advantage to flying in space...

Maybe today not but imagine in mid term the need to intercept hypersonic gliders. In that case you do want an interceptor capable of covering vast distances at hypersonic speed and delivering intercepting missiles close to the incoming warhead. In that case a plane capable of travelling in space with minimal drag would be very useful. As far as I understand it, the problem with these weapons is that you cannot practically cover all possible routes with land or sea-based interceptor missiles.

And that only considering defensive roles, imagine the attack capacities of such carrier.

GarryB wrote:Actually I think the technology and know how they develop with this aircraft will be rather valuable, but I also think the final aircraft will be cheaper, yet more effective in the interception role than any version of PAK FA could manage.

What technology you mean exactly? The plane is reported to travel max. 4,3 M and the challenge now are hypersonic speeds. I would agree if the project was (as I frankly stubbornly propose) used as an excuse to develop scramjets with or without detonation principles. As for the price, I doubt it would be cheap if you consider the challenges to propulsion, communications (plasma shielding if speeds very high) and materials.

GarryB wrote:The thing is that there is a lot of danger in actually leaving the earths atmosphere... an aircraft launching a missile at 40km altitude would be a new world altitude record for an air breathing aircraft, but any missile it launched from that altitude will have 99% of the advantages of a missile launched in space, but a fraction of the problems associated with trying to do that for the aircraft...

What are the dangers you are referring?
Yes for the missile 40 km would be already half there... but imagine if it was launched at 15 M and 100 km. You would measure the range of a small missile in thousands of km. And you could get closer to the threat (see my reasoning above) which for hypersonic threats calls for extreme speeds and ranges.

I guess such plane could be longer than a MiG-31 in order to keep oxidizer for suborbital manoeuvring.

GarryB wrote:Except the Tu-160 is not the same thing as the PAK DA... the PAK DA will replace the subsonic Bear, and the supersonic theatre bomber Backfire...

The MIG-41 is a direct replacement for the MiG-31... when the MiG-41 starts entering service the MiG-31s will be withdrawn, while Tu-160 and PAK DA will operate together for the next half century most likely.

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

GarryB wrote:It is heavy and expensive, and its design reaches back to the 1950s.

Upgrading old models is cheaper than designing a whole new plane, but the new plane will be more capable and easier to keep in service and up to date.

Ok, after asking so many times an getting rather evasive answers, I assume none of you see the -31 as obsolete, and I would agree. Of course it will need replacement, that is clear even to me...

GarryB wrote:Over mach 5 is considered hypersonic, the MiG-41 is only going to be a mach 4.2 aircraft which makes the issues like engines and heat much more sensible and relatively not so excessively expensive for current technologies.

The new design can be optimised for very high speed so in 10 years time they can start on new scramjet engines that can make it go faster...

Ok that is an important point: apparently after much time spent in trying to fly as fast as possible it was more or less clear that going beyond 3 M for a manned, reusable plane was quite a technical challenge and hence not economically sound.

Have I missed any crucial development? Have read about these new aluminium alloys and can imagine that now there are better solutions against the thermal loads and also much better engine technology than in the 60's. But is it enough to make the jump? What technologies you see available that would allow a practical, usable 4,2 M plane?

As for the design for higher speed with a later retrofit of new engines, this is what I pointed as extremely risky. How are you going even to test the airframe at those speeds when the propulsion is not available? In my experience this is not how you develop, the reality always has the last word no matter how good you simulate you know...

GarryB wrote:If you don't explore new technologies they will remain expensive and inaccessible... just keep using MiG-25s... they had 11 ton thrust engines.... with the 15 ton thrust engines from the MiG-31 they would be much faster and much better performing...

Great idea! Fast, restart the MiG-25 line!
The MiG-25 design was compromised after that guy gave the plane to the West. That is AFAIK what forced the Soviet Union to develop the -31...and it was a great idea BTW

GarryB wrote:Most of the first articles about the MiG-41 mention that the MiG-31s will start to leave service in 2028 or so... they also mention they are excellent tools that do a fantastic job that an Su-35 or Su-57 would be unlikely to do the same...

No f**ng doubt, a purpose-designed interceptor is way better than what an air superiority fighter can be. I doubt that the -31 will be retired in significant numbers that soon. Even if they start tomorrow with the -41 they will not have it ready by then (just based on previous projects)

GarryB wrote:Not much point in being stealthy... its frontal surfaces will glow orange in real life normal digital video let alone in thermal channels, and it will be using a rather powerful radar to detect targets and threats so stealth would be bloody pointless, yet would drive up costs.

Yes, no need for a radar if you can see it glowing with bare eyes... this kind of claims about the -41 make me veeery wary

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Why to develop PAK-FA when Su-30 is so good? Why to develop Armata if T-90AM is good enough?  this is calle dprogress. New model s dont have to be by order og magnitude better. They need to be better enough to meet new threats.

I'm happy that you mention those, they make my argument easier

> PAK-FA:
When this project was started US was close to commissioning of F-22 and in full development of JSF.

well Russia started PAK FA programme still in Soviet times AFAIK. 20 years of ~0 fincing took its tool you know

> Armata:
The T-90 is very cost effective but it is in the end a development of the T-72. Anyway you can also see how little stressed they are to field the Armata, in fact they are rather modernising the T-72 to B3 version than producing Armatas...

as a stopgap until Armata is fully tested and comes in numbers

One additional point: please consider how many years we hear of new plans and disruptive developments.

but not form technical experts right?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
From what I am understanding the start of an air-breathing PDE engine would be as a normal turbojet, no assistance needed.
First successfully controlled detonations were reported end of last year, so I would assume at least 20 years until an aircraft based on that propulsion principles can be fielded with the military... being optimistic

hmm PDE has another annoying feature . Noise.  Perhaps SABRE  - this is most advanced so far.  And AFAIK you can have start form airfield till orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

KomissarBojanchev wrote: Also it could escape to mid/ high earth orbit or just reach speeds of 30-40km/s

None of earthling build spacecrafts get to thsi speeds so far :-))) Besides they said - near space. So between 20-100 kmmax

Maybe today not but imagine in mid term the need to intercept hypersonic gliders. In that case you do want an interceptor capable of covering vast distances at hypersonic speed and delivering intercepting missiles close to the incoming warhead. In that case a plane capable of travelling in space with minimal drag would be very useful. As far as I understand it, the problem with these weapons is that you cannot practically cover all possible routes with land or sea-based interceptor missiles.

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

Getting it to fly in space is like getting an Il-38 May to go under water to chase down a sub... going to add lots of complication to the design... when it is easier to send weapons into the other medium than to take the whole platform...

A MiG-41 wont stay in space unless it is operating close to orbital speed... so 7km/s plus... so that means scramjet...

ICBM bus from SATAN missile can already leave the atmosphere and carry dozens of nuke warheads to the US or where ever...

What technology you mean exactly? The plane is reported to travel max. 4,3 M and the challenge now are hypersonic speeds.

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

As for the price, I doubt it would be cheap if you consider the challenges to propulsion, communications (plasma shielding if speeds very high) and materials.

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

They could have made them mach 3 bombers, but would need all new materials, or much more expensive materials, and new engines and also a range of new technologies... these days however Mach 3 would be achievable... but still not a deal breaker as the Mach 3.2 SR-71 is vulnerable so the extra expensive of making a mach 3 or 4 bomber would be a waste... a mach 4 interceptor on the other hand could lead to even faster and better interceptors.

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

What are the dangers you are referring?

Well a conventional aircraft like a MiG-31 has two big engines at the back to push it forwards and lots of control surfaces that redirect the airflow over them to exert force to yaw and roll and otherwise manouver... outside the atmosphere those control surfaces wont do squat.. what if as you are leaving the atmosphere a puff of denser air hits one wing tip and in the vacuum of near space the aircraft starts to roll as the engines flame out because there is no air flowing through them any more...

What happens when the aircraft drops back down into something like air facing backwards... it will be moving at enormous speeds and would be ripped to pieces...

Like a certain Space Shuttle which had heat tiles missing and was exposed to atmosphere during reentry...

I guess such plane could be longer than a MiG-31 in order to keep oxidizer for suborbital manoeuvring.

It is supposed to be an all new from scratch design...

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

All through the 1990s they said making more Tu-160s was not practical because you need an enormous forge to build the gigantic titanium box structure the swing wings sit inside to finish two of the Tu-160s still unfinished in the factory and to make any new aircraft... there was only one such forge in the world and it was in the Ukraine... and in no condition to make anything.

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

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

Ok, after asking so many times an getting rather evasive answers, I assume none of you see the -31 as obsolete, and I would agree. Of course it will need replacement, that is clear even to me..

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

It will be a real Firefox...

Ok that is an important point: apparently after much time spent in trying to fly as fast as possible it was more or less clear that going beyond 3 M for a manned, reusable plane was quite a technical challenge and hence not economically sound.

This is not an airshow plane.... this plane is going to be very heavily and widely used... if it is too expensive because it needs to be all super titanium alloys that cost thousands of dollars per square metre then it just will not work. New heat resistant aluminiums and other technologies will likely make Mach 4.2 achievable and reasonably affordable... and they will therefore be able to deploy them and use them.

What technologies you see available that would allow a practical, usable 4,2 M plane?

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

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

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

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

As for the design for higher speed with a later retrofit of new engines, this is what I pointed as extremely risky. How are you going even to test the airframe at those speeds when the propulsion is not available? In my experience this is not how you develop, the reality always has the last word no matter how good you simulate you know...

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

The MiG-25 design was compromised after that guy gave the plane to the West. That is AFAIK what forced the Soviet Union to develop the -31...and it was a great idea BTW

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

No f**ng doubt, a purpose-designed interceptor is way better than what an air superiority fighter can be. I doubt that the -31 will be retired in significant numbers that soon. Even if they start tomorrow with the -41 they will not have it ready by then (just based on previous projects)

I would say this programme will be funded by the Aerospace defence forces... so it will probably get good support, though I agree only really worn out MiG-31s will get the push to start with... it is a useful aircraft.

A couple of regiments in Syria would have blunted that cruise missile attack with ease...

well Russia started PAK FA programme still in Soviet times AFAIK. 20 years of ~0 fincing took its tool you know

Technically no... MFI and then MFS was Soviet Programmes... that produced the MiG-1.42 and MiG-1.44, and of course the Sukhoi S-37... the winning by S-37 led to the PAK FA programme...

> Armata:
The T-90 is very cost effective but it is in the end a development of the T-72. Anyway you can also see how little stressed they are to field the Armata, in fact they are rather modernising the T-72 to B3 version than producing Armatas...

It is probably going to take a decade to develop the Armata vehicle family to the point where armata brigades are complete...

Also it could escape to mid/ high earth orbit or just reach speeds of 30-40km/s

Anything moving at more than 11km/s and not actively turning would leave earth completely and rapidly head out into deep space...

as for speed : Actually I dont know who said 4-4,3 Ma. In Russian press I saw up to 5000 Km/h this would mean 4,7 Ma...Not sure what was first Ma or km/h anyway calculatiosnwer incorrect as based on Ma ~340 m/s not 295.4m/s

GarryB wrote:

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

More likely this type:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precooled_jet_engine

check SABRE engine.

The designed thrust-to-weight ratio of SABRE is fourteen compared to about five for conventional jet engines, and two for scramjets.[4] This high performance is a combination of the denser, cooled air, requiring less compression, and, more importantly, the low air temperatures permitting lighter alloys to be used in much of the engine. Overall performance is much better than the RB545 engine or scramjets.

Fuel efficiency (known as specific impulse in rocket engines) peaks at about 3500 seconds within the atmosphere.[3] Typical all-rocket systems peak around 450 seconds and even "typical" nuclear thermal rockets at about 900 seconds.

The combination of high fuel efficiency and low-mass engines permits an SSTO approach, with air-breathing to Mach 5.14+ at 28.5 km (17.7 mi) altitude, and with the vehicle reaching orbit with more payload mass per take-off mass than just about any non-nuclear launch vehicle ever proposed.[ci

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

does it ring the bell?

well Russia started PAK FA programme still in Soviet times AFAIK. 20 years of ~0 fincing took its tool you know

Technically no... MFI and then MFS was Soviet Programmes... that produced the MiG-1.42 and MiG-1.44, and of course the Sukhoi S-37... the winning by S-37 led to the PAK FA programme...

Stealth programme started in late 70s. Beginning of 90s MFI / LFI should be flying but... True that first flight of MiG 1.44 was 9 years delayed Not the disintegration of USSR had no effect on financing. Su proposed then not 37 (this evolved to Su-35) but Su-47 Berkut AFAIK.
But yes Su-57 was born much later nonetheless idea of stealth fighter was end of 70s...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:well Russia started PAK FA programme still in Soviet times AFAIK. 20 years of ~0 fincing took its tool you know

Agree with the financing part, but PAK-A was started IIRC in 2001 after cancelling the MFI

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
as a stopgap until Armata is fully tested and comes in numbers

Will go first to elite units. No hurry...

Forgot to point out what jump this new design was compared to the T72/T-90. Failing to see such a jump in the only credible version of MiG-41 that could start detailed development now.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
but not form technical experts right?

Experts are the last ones to speak and only to state the obvious. Do you want to get them fired?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
hmm PDE has another annoying feature . Noise.  Perhaps SABRE  - this is most advanced so far.  And AFAIK you can have start form airfield till orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)

Interesting! Cool pre-cooler

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If designed the MiG-41 I would just make it a manned hypersonic glide vehicle

This would be the space plane everybody wants to have...

BTW it seems the Russians managed to transmit signals to their Avantgard glider...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:as for speed : Actually I dont know who said 4-4,3 Ma. In Russian press I saw up to 5000 Km/h this would mean 4,7 Ma...Not sure what was first Ma or km/h anyway calculatiosnwer incorrect as based on Ma ~340 m/s not 295.4m/s

Don't try to excuse your shitty maths now... xD xD

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
More likely this type:

check SABRE engine.

does it ring the bell?

If such a pre-cooler could be applied to the turbofan/ramjet that GarryB proposes it would help quite a bit! ...but I guess (didn't read everything about it, only the diagram) this is all based on the liquid hydrogen on board! So no use with kerosene. Unless the Russians want their interceptor fleet fuelled with H2 as a saving measure...