Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 13 (1 members and 12 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SpudmanWP
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2009
    • 5292

    You can have all the clear objectives they want but those are wholly unrealistic goals, even if they had a decade to work on it.

    The Mig-31 airframe is just not capable of that speed or altitude and the Russian's history of engine tech leaves a lot to be desired.

    Is this the article you are referencing? If so, it talks about delivery in the "mid 2020s" and given how long the PakFa has taken, that goal is also unrealistic.

    Now, onto the whole "is it a 6th gen" issue. Even if it met these goals (is it even going to be VLO?), I would say no since they are just incremental advancements on existing features. Sadly, not enough is known about the Mig-41's plans & features to draw a better conclusion.

    Think of it this way: Would making a F-4/Mig-21 go higher & faster make it a 5th gen Fighter?

    This is all IMHO of course
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 17th January 2018, 23:24.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

    Comment

    • JSR
      JSR
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2011
      • 4976

      Su-57 is only composite material 3D TVC fighter and still able to fly high and super cruise with generous fuel capacity and still sleek. Once you understand those functions they are next to impossible to implement in single western fighters. It already border line of 6G

      Comment

      • MSphere
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 8983

        Originally posted by SpudmanWP
        You can have all the clear objectives they want but those are wholly unrealistic goals, even if they had a decade to work on it. The Mig-31 airframe is just not capable of that speed or altitude and the Russian's history of engine tech leaves a lot to be desired.
        Why MiG-31?

        Comment

        • Y-20 Bacon
          Senior Member
          • Apr 2013
          • 2176

          Never understood why people got wet over the su-47 / s-37

          looks wise it was a bit meh. kind of flat looking. I think people were attracted to its black paint.
          If I had to pick something Russian from the 90s, it is definitely the Su-27M. Best looking flanker variant by far.
          love the triplane configuration and the large frontal fuesealge..but I guess TVC wins over canards






          research wise.. never understood why they wanted to do research on forward swept wings.
          the X-29 came out a decade before and the limitations of such wings were widely published.

          Comment

          • paralay
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2005
            • 1409

            Su-27M could become a good fighter with a new engine 2 x 13,600 kgf. Unfortunately, such an engine was not created. The maximum speed of the Su-27M with the AL-31F is 1900 km / h

            For what i know, the S-37 was not intended as the fulfillment of a precise operational requisite but as a technology demonstrator, not just about wings but about advanced fly-by-wire, TVC (on a Soloviev D-30...), bombs bay, rear looking radar and so on...
            It seems to me that the Russians never made special experimental planes. New aircraft remained in a single copy only as a result of problems (unsuccessful design, the collapse of the USSR, failure with the engine and the like)
            C-37 is a deck fighter for the aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk." Even the prototype has a folding wing. The serial fighter had to get:
            - rescue capsule
            - engine with controlled thrust vector P179-300 2 x 17500 kgf (flat nozzle) or AL-41F (izd.20) 2 x 20000 kgf
            - PESA "Bars" radar with rotary antenna
            - internal compartments for six air-to-air missiles
            and much more....

            Click image for larger version

Name:	1143_7.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	977.0 KB
ID:	3678577
            Last edited by paralay; 18th January 2018, 03:26.

            Comment

            • SpudmanWP
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2009
              • 5292

              Why MiG-31?
              Because the article said (per Google Translate)
              As previously reported, PAC DP will be called the MiG-41 and is developed on the basis of MiG-31
              It then contradicts itself by saying
              At the same time, the aircraft will not become a product of the profound modernization of the MiG-31, but will be a completely independent new car.
              That may just mean that it's a new build rather than a block upgrade to an existing airframe.

              Like I said, I wish there was more information to form a better-informed opinion.
              "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

              Comment

              • paralay
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2005
                • 1409

                As long as there is no hypersonic aircraft from the enemy (the US or China), the Russians do not need a hypersonic interceptor. History with the MiG-41 - PR

                Comment

                • SpudmanWP
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 5292

                  As long as there is no hypersonic aircraft from the enemy (the US or China)
                  Well, the SR-72 is on the way
                  "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                  Comment

                  • paralay
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2005
                    • 1409

                    We are waiting for the hypersonic Aurora for twenty years

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	proekt-giperzvukovogo-samoleta-m-5-penetrator-730x360.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	46.3 KB
ID:	3678578

                    Comment

                    • Austin
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Oct 2003
                      • 6473

                      As long as there is no hypersonic aircraft from the enemy (the US or China), the Russians do not need a hypersonic interceptor. History with the MiG-41 - PR
                      The modernised Mig-31M/R-37M is capable of intercepting aircraft travelling at Mach 6 , The 40N6 and S-500 would be capable of intercepting hypersonic aircraft perhaps the entire S-400 series as well. Not sure why they would need mig-41 to do that job other than eventually their frame life will expire and to replace they would need something.
                      "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                      Comment

                      • Y-20 Bacon
                        Senior Member
                        • Apr 2013
                        • 2176

                        I agree with you Paralized

                        the Su-27M would have been nice.
                        Had Brazil actually ordered them in the late 90s or early 2000s, I think things would have been very different.
                        the current Su-35 many never have been born as the RuAf would've picky backed off the Brazilian order
                        and China would be placing canards on all its J-11/16 variants

                        Comment

                        • TR1
                          TR1
                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                          • Oct 2010
                          • 9818

                          Rogozin's son, re. Il-112V:

                          https://pp.userapi.com/c824201/v8242...6jKIcXf7wo.jpg

                          First flight will be in 2nd half of 2018. 3rd and 4th airframes to be started in next few months.
                          sigpic

                          Comment

                          • sepheronx
                            Senior Member
                            • Jun 2015
                            • 320

                            Originally posted by paralay View Post
                            As long as there is no hypersonic aircraft from the enemy (the US or China), the Russians do not need a hypersonic interceptor. History with the MiG-41 - PR
                            Regardless, they (Russia) will end up getting it (if it meets hype or not) to keep Sokol and Mikoyan alive.

                            Comment

                            • haavarla
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2008
                              • 6695

                              M2 and Hellducks doing touch n Go on a highway close to Rostov

                              https://www.rt.com/news/416222-russi...lanes-highway/
                              Thanks

                              Comment

                              • RALL
                                Rank 4 Registered User
                                • Aug 2017
                                • 203

                                @KGB you are a fanboy, your answer is not valid.

                                And Paralay did not answer, so i understand for him Su-57 (a prototype yet and with many doubts) outdated the F22 (a realiable fighter for last 15 years).

                                Of course IAF is not agree.
                                Last edited by RALL; 18th January 2018, 11:05.

                                Comment

                                • blackwood
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2011
                                  • 314

                                  What Paralay might be saying is that fighter concepts designed in the 1980s-90s are hopelessly outdated compared to the Pak-fa. That being both Sukhois and Mikoyans concepts for aircraft matching the F-22 back then compare no comparison to what they have designed now in the Pak-fa. We still have no official information on Indias thoughts on the Pak-fa. Also Indian officials have not seen the Pak-fa as it is now. Its only in the last few aircraft that they are getting closer to the machine as its going to be. Even the final engine has only just been tested in flight. How close are Indian officials to the end product?, not close at all. Since they have not committed yet to the program themselves, except for office drawings and plan stage. I don't think they know have far its progressed in the last 3 years.

                                  Comment

                                  • bring_it_on
                                    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                    • Jun 2004
                                    • 12480

                                    Almost they have a clear objective and are putting forth a path to get where they want to go while on the other side of Atlantic they have neither a beginning of a preliminary idea about what they want to achieve.
                                    So let's talk about what will be or not the 6 gen when they would get the fog out of their heads, ok?
                                    I'm not sure which side of the Atlantic you refer to but in the US, one of the two programs (USAF) has completed an ICD, has had capability assessment done by an ECCT, another done by an empowered AF SAB and is about 5 months from finishing a formal AOA. They too have a "clear objective" and have invested billions of dollars over the last decade on long lead technology in preparation for the next generation fighter demands and needs. Billions still are earmarked for the next 5-6 years to further develop long lead technology with key propulsion demonstrations planned for the early 2020s. Propulsion and outside technology "pull" aside, the current FYDP has earmarked >$4 Billion specific to the Next Gen. Fighter, outside of propulsion and other needs funded elsewhere.

                                    A formal MSA for the USAF program NGAD/PCA, would be completed by the end of the year moving the program to the next phase (Milestone A ---> TMRR). Perhaps the reason why you feel that "they don't a beginning of a preliminary idea" is because outside a highly sanitized non-classified ECCT AS2030 document for media consumption most of the effort is either classified or has not been publicly shared. Even the DARPA run AII is being funded via its classified budget so we aren't going to know what has and is being done until the program/effort is more mature and things are revealed but the direct and ever increasing money trail reveals quite a bit if one knows exactly where to look. For example, from a little under $300 million for direct NGAD/PCA needs this year (not allied programs like AETD/P but directly to support fighter R&D) they will be jumping to $500+ million next year and $1.3 Billion the year after that. This is consistent with a milestone bump for the program..A billion plus a year in R&D for a program of record means serious risk-reduction activity as it is going to be roughly a third to a half of what the program is likely to spend in a year during the peak of its development which is usually in the EMD phase. If one adds all the technology "candidates" for a future NGAD fighter the amount of money being spent per year is likely very close to a $1 billion even now which isn't being done by throwing random darts to see where they land but as per a technology maturity roadmap that is required to have things ready to be pulled into a POR at the right time.
                                    Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th January 2018, 12:16.
                                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                    Comment

                                    • Levsha
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2006
                                      • 2851

                                      The modernised Mig-31M/R-37M is capable of intercepting aircraft travelling at Mach 6
                                      It can? Has this capability ever been proved?

                                      Comment

                                      • Marcellogo
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2014
                                        • 1838

                                        @ Spud

                                        Seems me you have completely missed the point. So allow me to quote Tarashenko again:

                                        Tarasenko said Russia was already working on new aircraft that would be “smarter, faster” and with increased range and a higher top ceiling range.

                                        “We are working on perspective projects that by some characteristics are ahead of the current perception of aviation,” he said.
                                        So here we are talking about a new aircraft and a perspective project that by some characteristic would be ahead of the current perception of aviation. not something that is just a "smarter, faster and with increased range and higher top ceiling version of an already existing MiG, ei -31 or -35 either.

                                        So let's reverse the question: Would putting a laser up the fan of a F-35B made it a 6-gen plane? and if they put it instead on a F-86D it is good the same?

                                        Comment

                                        • FBW
                                          FBW
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Dec 2011
                                          • 3295

                                          I don't think the timing of that article regarding MiG-41 was accidental. It was dropped a few days after Skunkworks hinted that the SR-72 "might" be further along than originally thought.

                                          In regards to the actual progress, I doubt it is more than a schematic and twinkle in MiG's eye right now. Work on propulsion would have to already begun to meet a 2025 timetable. You can set the most ambitious specifications on paper, the technological readiness level of materials and propulsion will determine progress.

                                          Edit (addition)- There is some confusion of the start of R&D phase, it has been stated as "after the passing of the next state armaments program" which should be late this year, then in other statements 2019-20 timeframe. If recent aerospace projects are a guide, 5-6 years from R&D to first flight would be very tight indeed.
                                          Last edited by FBW; 18th January 2018, 13:44.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X