PAK DP prospective long-range interceptor

I wonder if the Mig31M is playing a role in the start off in this programme..
1 prototype and 6 pre-production units were manufactured, but the end of the cold war and end of the USSR stopped production and introduction into service.
It had a host of new improvements,  including airframe modifications, and more powerful engines.
Does anyone know where those airframes are in Jan 2024?
I saw on another forum that one/some/all have been moved from their usual storage location, as per satellite photos.

AFAIK the M upgrade was deemed too expensive at the time and was shelved and later on when more money became available they applied the less ambitious BM upgrade which improved various things of course and introduced the R-37M missile too, but didn't introduce all the upgrades, like the one piece front portion of the canopy to improve forward vision, or the LERX extensions on the wings and of course also not the new belly arrangement allowing 6 x R-37s to be carried at one time in belly positions.

I seem to remember they also had upgraded engines that were 16.5 tons thrust instead of the engines currently used with 15.5 tons thrust each.

I rather think that as they develop new technology for the new PAK DP that they can test and apply some of that technology to the MiG-31 as it is cleared for use to directly improve the existing fleet and also give a proper operational test for the equipment and systems so by the time the PAKDP is ready most of its systems are mature and fully operational.

Obviously some components wont be able to be tested like the new engines that allow it to fly mach 4.2... the MiG-31 wont be able to handle that aerodynamically I suspect... but newer lighter heat resistant materials would a be rather good way of improving the MiG-31, but also giving real world testing for the materials in operational conditions to see how they hold up for long periods of time being heated to high temperatures in flight and then landing on airfields that might be minus 30 degrees C...

Reducing airframe weight without reducing strength or heat resistance is always the goal of all aircraft designers and taking a few tons off the weight of the aircraft would make a significant difference I suspect. Improvements in shaping and aerodynamics might also improve performance too.

I notice on the MiG-35 that the LERX has a sharp edge and also flaps that open, presumably it energises the vortexes better to improve handling and control... it is also applied to the MiG-29M and MiG-29K, and might reduce RCS as well.

It is always good to apply new ideas and technologies to older platforms because it means you can get it into service faster and test it in the real world to see if it has any problems.

The problem with the Zumwalt and LCS and Ford class ships was that they were introducing a lot of new technologies all at once which makes fault finding difficult... you might be trying to find out why something isn't working properly when it is working just fine but the things it is connected to that it relies on to work are causing the problem... and that could be because the things they are connected to are not working properly.

They could have put that new gun on any number of different ships they have and work it through to get it working and shooting properly.

@Wilhelm

I don't think so - simply because much of the technology that was incorporated into the Mig-31M was already implemented on the much later Mig-31BM. Everything in that design is already dated  so I think whomever is going to design the PAK-DP, is going to work from a clean sheet of paper to start with. The only thing it will have in common with the Mig-31M is that it will be a long range interceptor. The rest will be 6th Gen. It's going to be a big leap from a 4th generation interceptor to the 6th - and I believe the specs (and the risks) are rather high.

On the other hand I personally would like to see something flying at Mach 3+ speed but with long range hypersonic missiles to take out whatever is out there. It will be less ambitious but it would also be a more affordable undertaking as well. If that is the case - then yes the Mig-31M may well be in there somewhere.

The MiG-31 airframe is made of stainless steel and is basically eternal. Continuous upgrades to the engines and electronics in the aircraft make much more economic sense. If you go to the trouble of making a new airframe you might as well put that money into PAK DP.

I don't agree, when you are developing new materials that have similar or better heat resistance capabilities but are much lighter then it would make sense to experiment with replacing existing heavy parts with much lighter parts perhaps of the same shape and design or perhaps an improved design that improves airflow and performance while being rather lighter.

Operational experience with new materials might lead them to realise that it might work in a lab but operational conditions don't allow it to be so effective and that maybe it might retain strength at higher temperatures, but expansion issues or vibration or stress issues appear... this is a case of using new materials to improve existing platforms and to get the new materials into service so the guys supporting these aircraft can learn the new properties and how to work with them.

I don't think they should do radical things to redesign the MiG-31 to be MiG-41 like, but there will be things they can upgrade and improve using new materials and computer models to reduce RCS and drag and reduce weight.

Reducing 1 ton of structure weight means reduced fuel burn and better acceleration and flight performance because you are not carrying 1 ton of excess weight everywhere. Reduced fuel burn means you can fly further for longer, or you can just use less fuel for the same jobs.

I don't think so - simply because much of the technology that was incorporated into the Mig-31M was already implemented on the much later Mig-31BM. Everything in that design is already dated so I think whomever is going to design the PAK-DP, is going to work from a clean sheet of paper to start with.

Have to agree... I doubt they carried very much across from the MiG-29M and Su-27M aircraft designs from the 1980s to the 2010s MiG-35 and Su-35 because most technologies have moved on in that time frame. Even the shift from CRTs in the 1980s to LCD screens now is a dramatic shift in performance and weight and space.

I would say most of the more useful things of the MIG-31M programme did get made in the MiG-31BM that there wasn't enough left over to make building MiG-31Ms now worth while.

The only thing it will have in common with the Mig-31M is that it will be a long range interceptor. The rest will be 6th Gen. It's going to be a big leap from a 4th generation interceptor to the 6th - and I believe the specs (and the risks) are rather high.

I think they could do with the MiG-31BM and the MiG-41 or whatever it will be called what Sukhoi did with the Su-35 and Su-57, where instead of making the Su-35 out of things developed for the old Su-27M, that they developed brand new stuff for the Su-57, and put cheaper simpler versions in the Su-35 to test and get experience with.... they were both single seat fighters so the tasks would not be totally different but of course the Su-35 was never going to have the sort of stealth the Su-57 has, just like the MIG-31 is not going to have the speed or range etc that the MiG-41 will have.

The point is that in the case of the MiG-31 that applying new technology and systems and weapons and equipment to an aircraft already in service allows you to deploy and take advantage of new systems faster and test them in realistic conditions to see if they actually work and if there are any hidden problems or issues... so those problems and issues can be solved before the MiG-41 even starts flying.

The first MiG-41 Serial aircraft might essentially be a MiG-41M because its systems and equipment has all been tested and improvements have been started and are ready to test too.

Of course that is the ideal process that Sukhoi managed to go through... even to the point of using Su-57 production experience to make a single engined light fighter family member on the profits, which could really sell in enormous numbers... and do so on merit rather than bullying or corruption.

GarryB wrote:

I think they could do with the MiG-31BM and the MiG-41 or whatever it will be called what Sukhoi did with the Su-35 and Su-57, where instead of making the Su-35 out of things developed for the old Su-27M, that they developed brand new stuff for the Su-57, and put cheaper simpler versions in the Su-35 to test and get experience with.... they were both single seat fighters so the tasks would not be totally different but of course the Su-35 was never going to have the sort of stealth the Su-57 has, just like the MIG-31 is not going to have the speed or range etc that the MiG-41 will have.

I admire your cost fixation  The Su-35 is currently in production, whereas the MiG-31 wasn't manufactured after 1994 . How would you envision upgrading and continuing to use airframes that are already on the verge of being worn out?

During the original discussion, as far as I recall, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that there would be no restarting of MiG-31 production but rather the intention to design and build a new interceptor. In the meantime, they planed to upgrade (MB and K) and continue using the MiG-31 until they reach the end of their operational lifespan.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

I admire your cost fixation  The Su-35 is currently in production, whereas the MiG-31 wasn't manufactured after 1994 . How would you envision upgrading and continuing to use airframes that are already on the verge of being worn out?

During the original discussion, as far as I recall, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that there would be no restarting of MiG-31 production but rather the intention to design and build a new interceptor. In the meantime, they planed to upgrade (MB and K) and continue using the MiG-31 until they reach the end of their operational lifespan.

You could ask it to Americans: given that the vast majority of their own legacy plane still in service is more than 30 years old and they still got a way better operational readiness than their latest F-22 and F-35 planes i'm quite sure that they would have some good advices to give.
Also because majority of russian legacy planes sat instead quite idle for more than a decade due to Eltsin's era economic downfall.
AFAIK they have however a lot of model DZ available , so they plan to get an interceptor version of them also, beside the K one.

I admire your cost fixation Smile The Su-35 is currently in production, whereas the MiG-31 wasn't manufactured after 1994 . How would you envision upgrading and continuing to use airframes that are already on the verge of being worn out?

The MiG-31 is no light agile fighter pulling 9g... it would take off and accelerate to speed and altitude and fly rather fast to a point in space where it would launch its long range missiles. It might then descend and chase down any missiles its target managed to launch before being shot down or it would fly back to base to rearm and refuel to get airborne again to hunt for other targets and any small low flying targets that might be trying to sneak through.

There are no sustained high g dogfights, or heavy stress on the airframe, which is rather heavily built in the first place.

A motor car... without collisions, doesn't require the chassis to be replaced after x hundred thousand kms of road travel.

Of course with the SR-71 they found the titanium was actually in better condition after years of flights because the massive heating and then cooling of the airframe with each flight actually further hardened the metal and actually made it stronger with use.

The point is that there are MiG-31s in storage that have not been used and those aircraft can be taken out of storage and be given upgrades and new engines and will be good for 20 years if they needed to.

During the original discussion, as far as I recall, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that there would be no restarting of MiG-31 production but rather the intention to design and build a new interceptor. In the meantime, they planed to upgrade (MB and K) and continue using the MiG-31 until they reach the end of their operational lifespan.

And if you watch the video above it mentions a few dates that have been mentioned before like 2028 as being a time when some of the more heavily used MiG-31s might need to be retired and a replacement aircraft be put into service to replace them.

They had MiG-31s in storage and have recently put the engine back into production to take some of those aircraft out of storage. Planes that have been in storage and get upgrades and new engines wont be retired in 2028, but some aircraft have been in use for quite some time and those aircraft could be retired and replaced.

There are plenty of options for upgrades including replacing the radar with a very powerful AESA radar array that would be rather enormous and very very powerful.

They don't need to make more MiG-31s when they have some in storage and are making the engine... what they are going to do it make the replacement and once that enters serial production they will likely slowly withdraw the MiG-31BMs from service... the ones with lots of airframe life left they might convert to MiG-31K duties or just put them in storage and use them in areas where MiG-41s are not needed yet.

Also because majority of russian legacy planes sat instead quite idle for more than a decade due to Eltsin's era economic downfall.

There was quite a period of time there when not many aircraft were actually flying and many were put into storage.

AFAIK they have however a lot of model DZ available , so they plan to get an interceptor version of them also, beside the K one.

Another factor is that they will be testing new systems and equipment... some of which it might be possible to fit into the MiG-31 for testing and actual operational use... more sophisticated EO systems... perhaps its own wing mounted long radar wave radar system to look for stealthy objects and platforms... and improved radar types.

A good way to get real world experience with a system before taking the risk of launching an aircraft with it as standard.

geez this is rude.

lancelot wrote:For the NGAD to be introduced in 2030 it would have needed to have flown already. It hasn't.
And didn't they defund the F/A-XX for the next two years just recently? It was all over the news.

Mid 2030s, to late 2030s introduction into service at best. Not 2030.

You have to remember the US Navy only recently introduced the F-35 and their Super Hornets are still fairly new. Unlike the US Air Force's fleet. For the Navy the F/A-XX isn't as much of a priority as the NGAD is for the Air Force.

The PAK-DP suffers from similar issues. The engine isn't available yet. Supposed to be based on AL-51 core and that isn't in serial production either. And we have heard nothing about the airframe.

But Russia has a 5th gen heavy fighter in serial production and the US hasn't. So it is the US which is in a hurry here.

They need something for replacing F22

I doubt they will even produce F35 in more numbers, we already see chokepoints in production capacity

I think it will be the same story as F22, the only difference is that they can keep the production open

Although with dispersed production it remains to be seen if other countries can keep their end of the bargain

IMO USAF should focus on F15EX

They have virtually no heavy fighter for interceptor/missile truck role

Ukraine is like 1,316kms wide and Poland is like 590kms wide.
The combat range of the F-22 is 600 nm or 1111kms without drop tanks at 850kms.
The combat range of F-35As is 950kms.
I guess if you put them all in Lviv you can still have the F-35s perform air to air and air to ground roles that can target Donetsk and have F-22s engage only aerial targets all the way up to Donetsk before flying all the way back to Lviv to refuel and restock on missiles.

Now if you give the Su-57 2nd stage engines which is what the next batch will receive by the end of this year(they will replace the 1st stage ones with 2nd stages while giving those 1st stages to Su-35s)

https://naukatehnika.com/izdelie-30...estvennoe-foto.html?ysclid=lueq95ui9p22873394 The Fuel consumption of the 2nd stage engine is to that of the AL 31F which is basically that of the Su-27.

https://masterok.livejournal.com/267227.html?ysclid=lufzfuj9ed528138241
This distribution of tasks was based on a significant difference in flight range and maximum weight of the combat load: Su-27 - flight range 4000 km without refueling, payload weight 8000 kg; The MiG-29 has a flight range of 1,500 km, a payload weight of 4,000 kg, which meant that the Su-27 aircraft has a combat range of 1,600 km, that is, it can conduct air battles near the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, performing the functions of an "air raider" I think the combat range could be somewhere between 1650km-1800km(su-57 weights 1,700kg more but it has 900kg of extra fuel) they can bump up the range with fuel tanks but I dont think that is needed.

They can basically fly from the far western border of Poland all the way to Donetsk and fly all the way back they can extend their range farther with fuel tanks and the aircraft stays with mach 2+ super cruise performance without using afterburners. The Su-57s can fly all the way to Lviv but their range is great enough to fly deep into Russia and have cover in one of the densest air defense networks there is. MRBMs and cruise missiles would need to be launched from Lviv to pass through that dense air defense network and you would need a shit load of missiles of those kinds in order to achieve that.

The U.S. and Russia are talking about 3 stream cycle engines but to me that is very weird because it's like the U.S. jumped from a 4th gen to a 6th gen engine design. I think Russia will have 2 seperate 6th gen aircraft designs. The 1st being the one with the 3 stream cycle engine and flat nozzles with more thrust and better TVC. the 2nd will be a hypersonic interceptor with detonation engines. Su-70 is a subsonic UAV, they are serious about a supersonic UAV Su-75 version based on their patent than eventually the mig-41 would be better suited as a hypersonic UAV and you will probably get stronger data signals if you are closer to satellites lol. The only way to determine the time period of a mig-41 is when Russia will have a UAV Su-75 in the air.

geez this is rude.

They have to be rude... their position is awful.

No Gonads in sight and their F-22s and F-35s are dogs... and expensive dogs at that.

The irony is that doubtful really only applies to the American and European dates for those new designs because they are most likely to be vapourware if past Euro programmes are to be considered... whether it is for aircraft or tanks they really don't have a good history of getting things right.

You have to remember the US Navy only recently introduced the F-35 and their Super Hornets are still fairly new. Unlike the US Air Force's fleet. For the Navy the F/A-XX isn't as much of a priority as the NGAD is for the Air Force.

They are also still buying F-18s instead of the newer and on paper replacement F-35s of various types.

The PAK-DP suffers from similar issues. The engine isn't available yet. Supposed to be based on AL-51 core and that isn't in serial production either. And we have heard nothing about the airframe.

That is just speculation... they have been working on the replacement since just after the MiG-31 entered service. Requirements and technologies have changed over the years but they have focussed on what is needed and what is possible.... they don't need a super engine for the new aircraft... in fact the existing engines would be just fine if a ramjet bypass flow design was incorporated into the design so that as it accelerates the bypass flow around the engine acts as a ramjet and the turbofan combustion core is reduced to idle and perhaps even shut down when flying at supersonic speeds.

The SR-71 did that decades ago so it is not impossible.

But Russia has a 5th gen heavy fighter in serial production and the US hasn't. So it is the US which is in a hurry here.

Russia has the Su-30/34/35/57 in serial production and is gearing up to have the MiG-35 in serial production as a numbers aircraft together with a new 5th gen light fighter design from MiG and from Sukhoi and also a heavy interceptor replacement for the MiG-31 in development.

Russia is in a very good situation, while the US and the west is a mess because their current fighters likely wont last long inside Russian AD zones and they are already too expensive to have to make too many more of them quickly without breaking budgets... along with all the other stuff they have to make to replace all the crap they sent to Ukraine to be destroyed.

As usual they will pin their hopes on a new super plane and also the hope that the Russian planes are not as good as they appear to be.

The only way to determine the time period of a mig-41 is when Russia will have a UAV Su-75 in the air.

I wouldn't read too much into that really... every new aircraft they have had since the Yak-130 has claimed to have an option for unmanned flight models, but there really is no demand for a UAV that is that expensive.

The S-70 is a great example of a UAV design based on an aircraft but not incorporating all of its features and structure to make it simpler and cheaper, and therefore more practical as an unmanned aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

The PAK-DP suffers from similar issues. The engine isn't available yet. Supposed to be based on AL-51 core and that isn't in serial production either. And we have heard nothing about the airframe.

That is just speculation... they have been working on the replacement since just after the MiG-31 entered service. Requirements and technologies have changed over the years but they have focussed on what is needed and what is possible.... they don't need a super engine for the new aircraft... in fact the existing engines would be just fine if a ramjet bypass flow design was incorporated into the design so that as it accelerates the bypass flow around the engine acts as a ramjet and the turbofan combustion core is reduced to idle and perhaps even shut down when flying at supersonic speeds.

The SR-71 did that decades ago so it is not impossible.

Maybe, but the compressor bleed of the J58 resulted in a flight mode that was very susceptible to flameouts and couldn't handle abrupt throttle changes. More than one pilot got knocked unconscious from having his head violently slammed into the bulkhead when one of the engines suffered a flameout at M3+ velocities.  J58 was never copied to another airframe, and with good reason. Murkans might buy into the Hollwood BS that the SR-71 was an invincible bird that couldn't be caught but anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knows that is just propaganda for idiots.

Russia can do much better than adopt an obsolete cul-de-sac technology from an obsolete murkan recon plane.  Variable cycle engine with scramjet mode... pulse or rotating detonation engine...  

Russia can do much better than adopt an obsolete cul-de-sac technology from an obsolete murkan recon plane. Variable cycle engine with scramjet mode... pulse or rotating detonation engine...

Well yes, that is what I mean, the Russians modeled supersonic airflow through a type of jet engine called a scramjet that allows the engine to provide thrust at enormous speeds.

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 were largely limited to mach 2.83 because of their engines and their cockpit windshields... their airframes were capable of going rather faster.

They recently mentioned the MiG-31 can now go faster because of new canopies that can resist the higher temperatures, but the rotational speed of the turbofan engines is limited by the temperature and rotational speed of traveling faster than this.

A ramjet or scramjet does not have rotating blades and flight speed is based on the airflow and how fast it can be made to go... the scramjet having the advantage of not needing to slow it down to subsonic speeds for the fuel to be added and burned to then produce supersonic thrust.

A scramjet is more like a rocket motor.

A sophisticated jet engine that can switch between propulsion modes or even just two turbofan engines like the existing jet engines used in the MiG-31 with a scramjet engine mounted between them so you can take off with airflow into the two turbofan engines and climb to altitude and then shut down the two turbofans and open the intake for the central scramjet which would generate more thrust than any other type of jet engine at supersonic speeds could accelerate the aircraft to the speeds required... perhaps mach 4.2... perhaps faster.

Is the mach 4.2 speed a limit of the engines they are thinking about, or a limit of the materials they plan to use?

Will the mach 4.2 speed be engine limited or airframe limited or materials limited.

It might be that they plan for ramjet propulsion which should be good up to about mach 5-6 unless it is underpowered and they plan to boost speed later.

I would say with a scramjet motor they could use just one instead of two and achieve the Mach 4.2 speed with raw thrust, or maybe have one turbofan engine to get the aircraft off the ground and airborne where two ramjets either side of the central turbofan can be lit and all three used to climb to altitude where the turbofan can be shut down and the ramjets used to accelerate to top speed.

Of course a new variable cycle engine that includes pulsejet or ramjet modes would also be rather interesting too.

Talk of a modification of the new Su-57 engine is interesting, but I would say a new engine based on the upgrade Tu-160M engine would be interesting too.

Imagine in 10 years time a redesigned Tu-160M2 with scramjet capable engines and an aircraft speed of mach 5?

And a civilian supersonic airliner based on that aircraft...

LMFS, I think, posted in this forum slides which showed the PAK DP would use an engine based around the Izdeliye 30, now dubbed the AL-51, core.

Saturn don't normally make engines for MiGs, MiGs generally use Klimov engines.

That slide we saw might be a Saturn proposal for their amazing new engine but have we seen what Klimov is proposing?

A turbofan engine like this Al-51 is no more suited to flying at mach 4.2 than the current engines in the MiG-31.

It might be modified to operate at Mach 3.

I honestly doubt it could be because that is not a flight regime the Su-57 would ever find itself in.

Even without knowing that information, I wouldn't be assuming that the PAK DP uses any kind of exotic propulsion method. The Russian work on pulse detonation engines for example still seems to be experimental. I would expect it to be used in missiles or drones before it gets used in operational aircraft.

If they want to fly to the target at mach 4.2 then they aint using rubberband powered turboprops...

Ramjet is bare minimum, and scramjet seems unlikely because if they used scramjets they should be able to fly much faster...

The original proposals for replacing the MiG-31 have probably been put into the trash at this point. Kind of like the MiG 1.44 was put into the trash and replaced with the Su-57.

I don't think they would ever throw out serious work they invested time and effort into... even just to show its limitations and problems.

Note the twin engine MiG proposal for carrier based aircraft does not look a lot different from a MiG 1.44... and that would be an option if the land based light fighter has to be twin engined too...





Compared with:



They are hardly the difference between day and night... sure a lot of stealthy refinement which was not applied to the MiG 1.44 that was revealed, it was the flying prototype rather than the stealthy one which was secret.

lancelot wrote:The PAK DP is meant to have similar performance envelope to the MiG-31 but will be able to fire hypersonic weapons. It isn't the aircraft that is hypersonic but the weapons.

That makes sense to me. It will not only be pointless to develop a Mach 4+ PAK DP but extremely expensive as well. As I've said before - it will be much easier/cheaper to develop hypersonic missiles instead.

Mir wrote:

lancelot wrote:The PAK DP is meant to have similar performance envelope to the MiG-31 but will be able to fire hypersonic weapons. It isn't the aircraft that is hypersonic but the weapons.

That makes sense to me. It will not only be pointless to develop a Mach 4+ PAK DP but extremely expensive as well. As I've said before - it will be much easier/cheaper to develop hypersonic missiles instead.

Not really, since a manned platform able to fly at M4+ over long range equipped with a powerful radar and sensors is far more valuable in securing a vast and mostly empty border hinterland than a slower craft equipped with hypersonics.  Security comes from showing the flag, in having a presence and being able to quickly establish a presence, not simply being able to shoot a missile from a distance. If that was the case, why bother with manned interceptors at all, why not just construct SAM missile bases every 1000kms along the Arctic shoreline?

It's also a strong statement of capability and technological prowess.  Murkhan trash cnts still yabber about the junk SR71 and snidely criticise the MiG-25, but what will these exceptionalist cock holsters say if Russia fields a M4.2 manned MiG-41(?) with a 2500kms combat range equipped with 400km range hypersonic AAMs?  Not even full blown septic fan-bois like Dave Axe or the inbred retard legions of The Drivel  could explain that away.  It would be a shot across the Wests collective bows that would make the MiG-25 scare of the 70s seem tame by comparison. What will they do in response?  Write some more columns about non-existent vapour-ware projects like the long-fantasied SR-72? Double down on nonsense that Russia doesn't have the technology or the cash to challenge Uncle Scam, or that Russian mud-hut dwellers lack "innovation"?