3 new Mikoyan combat aircraft models shown at MAKS 2021

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
1,204
Assuming the lines on the fuselage side indicate the landing gear bay it's going to be pretty crowded in there.

I really don't think they've worked out how the bays and the undercarriage are going to work together. Either the bays get significantly narrower than they're shown right now, or the gear is going to have to deploy from very high on the fuselage side.

ETA: And they also need to fit the duct from the intakes to the engine in there, yet the bay is shown as coming as far forward as the back of the cockpit. The only way it can work is if the bay is very shallow.
 

Acatomic

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
75
Reaction score
150
They still have a chance.

"Only" thing they have to do is focus on:
- UCAV
-Pak-DP
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
262
They still have a chance.

"Only" thing they have to do is focus on:
- UCAV
-Pak-DP
I think there is no 'they', just a common design entity for all of UAC now.

Is there a room full of only 'MiG' people? Or Sukhoi even?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,966
Reaction score
5,554
Poor MiG. Under UAC it seems it is just a brand. https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/71367/
I remember hearing about it, though I thought they had shelved the plan subsequently due to current conditions as well as the generally pretty negative reaction within and without (Sukhoi being the only design bureau that would be ultimately left standing of course being about the only exception to this poor reception of the plan).
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
218
Reaction score
93
I was wondering what would happen to MiG!

you can see some of the MiG 1.42 heritage in that model, especially the rear.

question. are canards better for carrier landings?

I wonder if MiG will succeed with the shipborne fighter though, I would think that Sukhoi would put forward the LTS as a possible naval fighter and end up with a fly off like what happened with the MiG-29K and Su-27K and we all know what happened there.
How much faith do the Russians have in the Izdeliye 30? Using a single engine in naval aviation isn't for the faint of heart.
heres hoping India dumps their new twin engined Tejas aircraft (thats reallly a new design) and buys this instead.


Indeed, hope is always the last what dies!

A few years ago at Zhuhai 2018 during a small "private" lecture in a small group, Piotr Butowski talked about the fading away into insignificance of the Russian military aviation industry and predicted something like a swansong! Maybe this is one last final rearing up to prevent the inevitable end?
The Russians have to offer the Indians a much better workshare, considering they'll be paying for everything and at least these ones look relatively
The lightweight fighter seems only to have room for fuel in the wings and maybe the tail. Very large weapons bay.

Photos (c) Muxel.
That wing doesn't look very wet.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
262
Poor MiG. Under UAC it seems it is just a brand. https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/71367/
I remember hearing about it, though I thought they had shelved the plan subsequently due to current conditions as well as the generally pretty negative reaction within and without (Sukhoi being the only design bureau that would be ultimately left standing of course being about the only exception to this poor reception of the plan).
So the models may be part of a struggle to survive as a separate entity? Good for them.

Poor Yak....
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
653
Poor Yak....

Yak were actually the first to lose independence, when they came under the Irkut umbrella. For them, it worked out exceedingly well though - the Yak-130 is arguably the most influential trainer of the past 20 years and has managed to outsell the siblings it spawned. And of course, in all but name, the most advanced narrow-body airliner currently flying is a Yak (rebranding the MS-21 as the Yak-242 that it started out as was in fact mooted).

They've been faring a damn sight better than MiG! The watershed, I think, was when the Russian MoD failed to take MiG up on the private venture Skat UCAV in 2007 (I was actually at the show that year - how time flies!). It seemed like a competent design, quite far along in development and the timing was auspicious - interesting parallels to Checkmate!
 
Last edited:

Galvars

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
27
Reaction score
23

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
262
Poor Yak....

Yak were actually the first to lose independence, when they came under the Irkut umbrella. For them, it worked out exceedingly well though - the Yak-130 is arguably the most influential trainer of the past 20 years and has managed to outsell the siblings it spawned. And of course, in all but name, the most advanced narrow-body airliner currently flying is a Yak (rebranding the MS-21 as the Yak-242 that it started out as was in fact mooted).

They've been faring a damn sight better than MiG! The watershed, I think, was when the Russian MoD failed to take MiG up on the private venture Skat UCAV in 2007 (I was actually at the show that year - how time flies!). It seemed like a competent design, quite far along in development and the timing was auspicious - interesting parallels to Checkmate!
Exactly. Until, perhaps, they all merged earlier this year (but maybe not, see other folks' posts above).
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
886
Reaction score
715
Poor Yak....

Yak were actually the first to lose independence, when they came under the Irkut umbrella. For them, it worked out exceedingly well though - the Yak-130 is arguably the most influential trainer of the past 20 years and has managed to outsell the siblings it spawned. And of course, in all but name, the most advanced narrow-body airliner currently flying is a Yak (rebranding the MS-21 as the Yak-242 that it started out as was in fact mooted).

They've been faring a damn sight better than MiG! The watershed, I think, was when the Russian MoD failed to take MiG up on the private venture Skat UCAV in 2007 (I was actually at the show that year - how time flies!). It seemed like a competent design, quite far along in development and the timing was auspicious - interesting parallels to Checkmate!

Well that's sad :x

Even Sukhoi Superjet still retains "Sukhoi" name.
 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
218
Reaction score
93
How much faith do the Russians have in the Izdeliye 30? Using a single engine in naval aviation isn't for the faint of heart.

There's been no single engine shipboard fighter announced. The twin engine design is the shipboard fighter design.
That was in response to a comment about LTS' potential as a naval fighter.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,136
Reaction score
5,655
Looks like a design from me to MiG in 2020,I told them they should pay attention to a market
of single engined fighter,and they lost many of their benefits after MiG-21,but mine has a new two
ideas and anther third one invented before but not used in practically.

It's nice design,but all fashion,but from mine could be beaten any aircraft in maneuverability
of the world.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
1,204
They still have a chance.

"Only" thing they have to do is focus on:
- UCAV
-Pak-DP
I think there is no 'they', just a common design entity for all of UAC now.

Is there a room full of only 'MiG' people? Or Sukhoi even?
Not sure, but I think I read somewhere that they are still separate.
Nah, they all under UAC. They retain own names but they are the division of UAC.

It's quite feasible to have multiple design teams operating completely separately for prolonged periods even within the same subsidiary - BTDT: BAE had two flight control teams within BAE Systems North America, the ex-Marconi one in Rochester, UK and the ex-Lockheed Martin one in Johnson City, NY, plus there was definitely a third team somewhere in the legacy BAe units developing the UAV FCSs for things like Herti and Taranis. The two BAE Systems NA teams eventually shared some QA processes (muggins spent a year in videocons writing them), and had the same bosses if you went up a few levels, but had zero functional contact, probably because of US export control restrictions. At the aircraft design level, BAC/BAe had at least three separate teams for three decades - Brough, Warton, and the third one whose name escapes me - Weybridge?

The legacy Russian system of separating OKBs and production organisations actually makes this even simpler.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
916

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
916
My reading is the MiG designs are all Klimov RD-33 derivative powered, so the lightweight design is significantly smaller than the "Checkmate".

I agree, all these Russian design houses likely won't all secure funding in this day and age and MiG seems the first to fade away.
that said, that light multi function plane looks like it has a single bay and is quite small, compared to the Checkmate that potentially has 1 bay and 2 small AAM bays.

could be cheaper and find some market... at least compared to the carrier plane.

You both appear to be right. Still though, that raises the question of just how much fuel such a small craft can carry once you account for the space taken by the internal bay. You can of course offset this issue somewhat by using the bay to carry a fuel tank, but if you have to do so to squeeze any useful range out of the thing, then it becomes a self defeating feature. So in the end, it would have to be a seriously short-legged platform. I suppose the real question is: Which nations are in need of a cheap LO plane with a small payload capacity and even smaller effective range?
Many small countries do not need massive range to defend all of their borders: Switzerland, Portugal, Israel and many island nations.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
1,204
That inverted "almost V tail" definitely looks stealthy, but I question its aerodynamic effectiveness at high angles of attack. Mind you, a drone might not have to do steep turns if its' only mission is recce.

Given that's essentially the kite planform seen on a bunch of UAV designs such as X-45, and none of those have needed a tail, my initial reaction was just "why?"
 

Gavin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
62
Reaction score
11
That inverted "almost V tail" definitely looks stealthy, but I question its aerodynamic effectiveness at high angles of attack. Mind you, a drone might not have to do steep turns if its' only mission is recce.

Given that's essentially the kite planform seen on a bunch of UAV designs such as X-45, and none of those have needed a tail, my initial reaction was just "why?"
My guess is that it has something to do with low-speed handling for carrier landings.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
262
They still have a chance.

"Only" thing they have to do is focus on:
- UCAV
-Pak-DP
I think there is no 'they', just a common design entity for all of UAC now.

Is there a room full of only 'MiG' people? Or Sukhoi even?
Not sure, but I think I read somewhere that they are still separate.
Nah, they all under UAC. They retain own names but they are the division of UAC.

It's quite feasible to have multiple design teams operating completely separately for prolonged periods even within the same subsidiary - BTDT: BAE had two flight control teams within BAE Systems North America, the ex-Marconi one in Rochester, UK and the ex-Lockheed Martin one in Johnson City, NY, plus there was definitely a third team somewhere in the legacy BAe units developing the UAV FCSs for things like Herti and Taranis. The two BAE Systems NA teams eventually shared some QA processes (muggins spent a year in videocons writing them), and had the same bosses if you went up a few levels, but had zero functional contact, probably because of US export control restrictions. At the aircraft design level, BAC/BAe had at least three separate teams for three decades - Brough, Warton, and the third one whose name escapes me - Weybridge?

The legacy Russian system of separating OKBs and production organisations actually makes this even simpler.
Yes, although the Interfax article indicates that they will stay separate but also be moved into one building. It's a bit confusing:

"This drive for optimization will not apply to the companies' teams of engineers and designers, but will impact only their administration and management, the spokesperson said.

"The design schools will remain independent and will gain new opportunities for development and better conditions for work in the format of the unified engineering and design center. This center will be based in Moscow, which houses UAC's trial and test bench infrastructure. Relocating aircraft design bureaus to other regions is not on the agenda," he said."

If all together in one place are they really separate teams, rather than 'brand managers' in a unified team? I can understand the 'big plane' folks not getting involved in fighters, but if MiG and Sukhoi people are all in one place are they really separate design teams anymore?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,966
Reaction score
5,554
That is debatable, especially given that a lot of MiG's misfortunes over the years were more often than not down to skulduggery by Sukhoi.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
1,204
That inverted "almost V tail" definitely looks stealthy, but I question its aerodynamic effectiveness at high angles of attack. Mind you, a drone might not have to do steep turns if its' only mission is recce.

Given that's essentially the kite planform seen on a bunch of UAV designs such as X-45, and none of those have needed a tail, my initial reaction was just "why?"
My guess is that it has something to do with low-speed handling for carrier landings.

I'd counter that with the X-45N and X-47, with exactly the same tailless kite planform, being planned as carrier based UCAV demonstrators.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,178
Reaction score
6,328
That is debatable, especially given that a lot of MiG's misfortunes over the years were more often than not down to skulduggery by Sukhoi.
I've yet to see confirmation for such claims.
Mikoyan benefitted from connections to the highest level of Communist leadership. I think its more like they lost their advantages than Sukhoi sabotaged them.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
653
Catch-22, can't deliver without support, won't get supported unless you deliver. As I said earlier, MiG did make a creditable attempt to escape its dependence on the inferior MiG-29 platform, and was rebuffed. That was certainly not its fault, whereas the subsequent return to throwing good money after bad on the Fulcrum was. With hindsight, the company should instead have doubled down on advancing Skat development on its own dime, betting that eventually the MoD would come round to the idea (as we know it later did, with Okhotnik). Maybe this would have needed to involve going the Yak way, i.e. cozy up to Irkut to complete the project as part of an economically sound conglomerate.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
1,204
New MiG concepts aimed at Russian navy requirement

https://www.flightglobal.com/defenc...ed-at-russian-navy-requirement/144714.article

Identifies the large fighter as the Perspective Multifunctional Shipborne Fighter and the UAV as the Perspective Multifunctional Shipborne UAV. The article seems to say the purpose of adding the inverted-v tail is to increase CofG range. Also mentions a Perspective Complex of Deck Aviation the two could combine to meet.

ETA: plugging those into Google to back-translate I get:
Perspective Multifunctional Shipborne Fighter = Perspektivnyy mnogofunktsional'nyy korabel'nyy istrebitel = PMKI?

Perspective Multifunctional Shipborne UAV = Perspektivnyy mnogofunktsional'nyy korabel'nyy BLA = PMKB?
(I have no idea if Google is translating UAV correctly, I also got BPLA/БПЛА for UAV alone).

Perspective Complex of Deck Aviation = Perspektivnyy kompleks palubnoy aviatsii = PKPA?
(No idea if that's the right deck either)
 
Last edited:

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
218
Reaction score
93
That is debatable, especially given that a lot of MiG's misfortunes over the years were more often than not down to skulduggery by Sukhoi.
I've yet to see confirmation for such claims.
Mikoyan benefitted from connections to the highest level of Communist leadership. I think its more like they lost their advantages than Sukhoi sabotaged them.

I think it comes down to Russia's economic situation and not being able to or having a need for 2 fighter design bureaus. The SU-27 had a lot more potential in its upgrade path simply cause it was the hi in the hi-lo mix.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
84
Reaction score
127
The project is in the computer design stage, the prototype will be "in a few years" ...
 

Gavin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
62
Reaction score
11
The project is in the computer design stage, the prototype will be "in a few years" ...
From the article, translated by Yandex: "... within the framework of the project, the possibility of creating a version of the fighter with vertical take-off and landing is also being considered."

Really? A VTOL "version"? Or a completely different, alternate design with VTOL capability? Perhaps the original Russian makes the point clear?
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
84
Reaction score
127
The project is in the computer design stage, the prototype will be "in a few years" ...
From the article, translated by Yandex: "... within the framework of the project, the possibility of creating a version of the fighter with vertical take-off and landing is also being considered."

Really? A VTOL "version"? Or a completely different, alternate design with VTOL capability? Perhaps the original Russian makes the point clear?

OMG, no! Excluded. Rather, it is the traditional inability of journalists to understand the meaning of the term "short take off/landing". They always add something to attract attention.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
84
Reaction score
127
The model of MiG PMKI is quite poor, true. But a real airplane can have more advanced features. Look at the cockpit, it obviously has the same shape, but it is frameless. We'll see.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210302_121609.jpg
    Screenshot_20210302_121609.jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 21
Top