Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Russia’s MiG-41 Interceptor Aircraft to Be ‘Absolutely New Jet’

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by lca-fan, Aug 23, 2017.

  1. ranadd

    ranadd 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    279
    Country Flag:
    India
    I ignored the rest of your post.

    No one expects them to reveal classified technology. That's what I keep using the word precursor exactly for avoiding this confusion.

    There is nothing from Russian scientific community, yet, that prove they are capable of this undertaking.

    My point is, this is hot air.
     
  2. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,799
    Likes Received:
    5,780
    Those questions are pretty vague.

    Yes. If you are talking about the aircraft.

    Vague again.
     
  3. Flyboy!

    Flyboy! Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    495
    Country Flag:
    India
    I thought supersonic nose intakes were long gone because of difficulty in controlling optimal flow during high alpha maneuvers and irregular shock patterns .
     
  4. Gessler

    Gessler Mod MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    9,096
    Country Flag:
    India
    The image is an unofficial artist impression and probably looks nothing like the actual plane (which no one knows anything about).

    This is what artist impressions of PAK-FA looked like -

    [​IMG]
     
    Flyboy! and Blackjay like this.
  5. ranadd

    ranadd 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    279
    Country Flag:
    India
    Ok.
     
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,346
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Country Flag:
    United States
    MiG-41: Russia Wants to Build a Super 6th Generation Fighter
    [​IMG]
    Dave Majumdar
    April 6, 2017

    TweetShareShare
    [​IMG]
    To protect its vast airspace, Russia relies on the powerful, long range and speedy Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound. But while Moscow continues to upgrade the venerable Mach 2.83-capable interceptor, the jets have not been produced since 1994.

    While Russia’s current fleet of MiG-31s will likely be able to serve into the 2030s, the Kremlin will eventually have to develop a replacement. Indeed, the Kremlin has funded some preliminary work on developing a successor to the venerable Foxhound that is tentatively being called the MiG-41.

    “There are some discussions and initial research about development of a MiG-31 successor - but it is at the very early stages,” Russian defense analyst Vasily Kashin at Moscow's Higher School of Economics (HSE) told The National Interest.



    The MiG-41 would be a completely separate development from Russia’s fifth-generation Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA air superiority fighter. The potential new interceptor would be more of a so-called sixth-generation effort similar in concept to the U.S. Air Force’s Penetrating Counter Air or the U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX or Next Generation Air Dominance programs.

    “As I understand, the MiG-41 is a kind of a futuristic project which is still on the stage of conceptual design,” Kashin said. “I think that it is something like a 5++ or 6th Gen project. So, we probably should consider it as having the same status as the American, Chinese and European 6th Gen projects—something futuristic, which, at best will be deployed by 2035-40.”

    Because the MiG-41 would be developed well after work on the PAK-FA is complete, the new interceptor would not compete for resources with Sukhoi’s program. “I think there is no conflict, because even if it ever reaches the test flying stage, it can be no earlier than some time around the mid-2020s,” Kashin said.


    Others expressed skepticism as to whether Russia has the resources to develop such an aircraft. “I think it's still very much a paper project under the slogan ‘if we draw it, then maybe we'll get money for it,’” a defense industry source told The National Interest.

    Russia needs a long-range interceptor to replace the MiG-31 because of its large territory. Post-Soviet Russia—even shorn of many of its former territories—covers a vast landmass with bases that are often few and far between. “Russia needs a long range interceptor because of its geography, so keeping the MiG-31 as long as possible and then making a replacement for them is a good idea,” Kashin said.

    Only time will tell if the MiG-41 is eventually built. Certainly, the Kremlin has the ambition and the need to develop such an aircraft. It’s question of if Russia has the resources to bring such an ambitious project to fruition
     
  7. Flyboy!

    Flyboy! Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    495
    Country Flag:
    India
    There is no conventional turbojet to sustain Mach 3. It has to be turbo-ramjet, which russia dont have as yet. A scramjet is too inefficient for a winged aircraft.
     
  8. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,346
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The F-22 Raptor's Replacement Is Starting to Take Shape
    [​IMG]
    Kyle Mizokami
    Popular MechanicsAugust 23, 2017
    [​IMG]

    The U.S. Air Force is finalizing technology requirements for a new fighter jet to enter service sometime in the 2030s. Known as "Penetrating Counter Air," the new fighter will replace the F-22 Raptor and help maintain American air superiority in future conflicts. The sixth generation fighter will incorporate a number of new technologies that for now exist only on the drawing board.

    Aviation Week & Space Technology[/a] that while the F-22 and F-35 will continue to be improved, "Eventually you will run into a limit in your ability to improve those platforms, and so we need to have something else ready."' data-reactid="20">Citing the existence of advanced Russian weapons such as the S-400 air defense missile system and the Su-57 (formerly PAK-FA) fighter, Air Combat Command commander General Mike Holmes told Aviation Week & Space Technology that while the F-22 and F-35 will continue to be improved, "Eventually you will run into a limit in your ability to improve those platforms, and so we need to have something else ready."

    The U.S. hasn't designed a clean-sheet fighter twenty years, and Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) will differ from the F-22 and F-35 in some ways to deal with new strategic realities. For one, PCA will emphasize range, particularly in order to fly escort missions for B-2 and B-21 bombers over Russia and against China in the Asia-Pacific. These sort of missions were unthinkable just five years ago.

    [​IMG]<img alt="Photo credit: Andalou News Agency."
    The problem is, a fuel-efficient engine that sips fuel is a different beast from a high performance engine meant to give fighters an edge in air to air combat. The Air Force hopes for the best of both worlds with so-called "three stream propulsion," which utilizes a third air stream to make the engine more efficient or provide more thrust.

    PCA will also be stealthy, and likely lose vertical tail fins that are standard on all aircraft, from the P-51 Mustang to the F-22 Raptor. Vertical tail fins are major impediments to achieving durable stealth against various types of radars, and were first ditched with the B-2 Spirit bomber. (In fact, there will probably never be a U.S. combat aircraft built with a vertical tail fin ever again, unless stealth technology was so compromised it became irrelevant.)

    Japan's AAM-4B[/a] and the UK's Meteor missile.

    The Air Force has requested $294.7 million in fiscal 2018 to continue studying PCA and nailing down specifications.
     
    surya kiran likes this.
  9. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    352
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    IR signature is going to be a huge.
     
  10. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,130
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Materials get difficult at high speeds. Ideally you need a reaction engine for that speed too.
     
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,346
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Don't think the Russians can cut it.

    The Future of Technology Development in Russia


    Some may say that U.S.-Russian relations are "estranged but leading toward alienation," reported Glenn Schweitzer at a Kennan Institute lecture on 22 February 1999. However, Schweitzer, Director of the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia, National Research Council in Washington, D.C., argued that the current situation is just another "bump in the road that we'll have to ride out."

    Schweitzer conducted interviews and a structured survey of thirty research and development (R&D) institutes across Russia with teams doing case studies in three atomic cities--Obninsk, Zarechny, and Snezhinsk. The purpose of these studies was to assess the process and future of technology development in Russia.

    Obninsk has managed to attain certain autonomy from Moscow in decisions concerning state-owned facilities in the city. As a result, federal, regional, and local governments work together to develop the industrial potential there.

    Zarechny, Schweitzer argued, has a chance for success. It only has a small population to support. City managers also know how to operate in the international market system through their rare gas market. Finally, Zarechny has discovered a gold mine under the city.

    Snezhinsk, on the other hand, is not in such a good position, remarked Schweitzer. The city has a larger population and is located several hours from any airport. According to Schweitzer, Russia will need to subsidize Snezhinsk for the next several decades because it is unlikely the city can commercialize its technologies without government money.

    Building on these studies, Schweitzer developed four hypotheses for technology development. First, that in the foreseeable future, technological developments will have little effect on what happens in Russia. Second, the U.S. will need to be engaged in the national security area for a long time. Third, given that the Russian government invests roughly 4 percent of what the U.S. government does in R&D, federal investment will not make a difference. Finally, a market economy may not be the best avenue for technology development in Russia.

    With regard to the legal framework, in most countries of the world, including the U.S., R&D receives certain tax breaks. In Russia, there is discussion of no tax breaks for anyone. However, a special relationship between R&D and taxes has been demonstrated for decades in countries that have done well in technology. In regard to intellectual property rights (IPR), in Russia the government retains rights to all technology developed using government funds. In the U.S. by law IPR rights automatically pass to universities, non-profits, and small businesses. The lack of such a law in Russia does not provide an incentive for R&D.

    In addition, there is widespread feeling in Russia that the West has stolen their technology both physically and metaphorically via the "brain drain." Although there is a slow but steady exodus of some bright researchers, remarked Schweitzer, the brain drain-- going abroad--is not very great. However, the internal brain drain--researchers in Russia leaving the sciences-- is massive. The number of active researchers in Russia is a fraction of the number reported to be working in R&D.

    Recently, schools have seen an increase in applications for science and engineering among Russia's youth. One possible explanation for this increase, Schweitzer explained, is that students are dissatisfied with the quality of instruction in the business schools and choose instead to follow the route of those bank presidents who studied physics instead of economics and business. This rationale explains why there is such a disparity between the number of graduates from science programs and those who continue to work in the field.

    Schweitzer remarked that U.S. programs in Russia in the non-proliferation area are well-conceived but have had problems with implementation and need to be expanded. While many people involved have little knowledge about Russian culture or language, this is slowly improving. U.S. technology commercialization efforts, however, have been insignificant. Schweitzer argued that our role in that area may be "to cheer on the Russians as they look for their domestic customer base." According to Schweitzer, giving money to Russia should not be considered "assistance" as it protects U.S. interests.

    There are a few things--none very popular with U.S. policy makers--which Russia should do to stimulate technological development, Schweitzer suggested. One is to develop a good regional customer base. Another is to adopt a "Buy Russian" law stating that Russian firms should buy Russian technology if government money is involved and that technology is reasonably competitive.

    Schweitzer concluded with three hopeful signs for Russia. First, due to the economic crisis and scarcity of dollars, Russian companies can penetrate the domestic market because foreign imports are too expensive. Second, production sharing agreements which contain some "Buy Russian" clauses are moving through the parliament. According to Schweitzer, these agreements may resolve some concerns of Western companies and may attract the West to help Russian technologies move in a more productive way. Finally, Schweitzer argued, the First Deputy Minister of Atomic Energy's recent announcement of Russia's plans to downsize their nuclear complex demonstrates that Russia is headed in the right direction.

    Sanctions have made a bad situation worse and there is no indications the sanction are going to be lifted in the near future.
     

Share This Page