MiG MFI / I-90 - MiG 1.44 / MiG 1.42

[flateric]

Actually one of 5.12 iterations always was here...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mig-mfi-i-90-mig-1-44-mig-1-42.422/post-34999

Scale of this model was 1/4.5

 

[Suslova]

Also thus is the mig 1.42 with serpentine intakes and internal bay not the aerodynamic demonstrator mig 1.44 that most pictures are of.

Well… first let’s clarify one thing…
The 1.44 was merely a demonstrator for aerodynamic design, so in the final product many details could undergo significant changes.
In addition, the specific design of the production-standard 1.42 has never been finalized… the configuration featuring a double-delta wing and wedge-shaped intakes is considered to be the “third variant” of the 1.42 (while the 1.44 that we are familiar with corresponds to the “second variant”).
Therefore… it is not entirely reasonable to judge its stealth characteristics purely based on external appearance.
However, according to some sources (although most are unofficial), the projected frontal radar cross-section of the 1.42 was around 0.3 m²…
roughly comparable to that of the Su-57.

 

[Suslova]

...

 

[flateric]

Taken from Wiki

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes those specs are clearly nonsense.

 

[Iomar]

I believe this is the right forum for this do to other threads about the su-57s stealth also being on here.

Also thus is the mig 1.42 with serpentine intakes and internal bay not the aerodynamic demonstrator mig 1.44 that most pictures are of.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/e6ufcapwybq5f_u-jpg.664533/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/e6ufcapwybq5f_u-jpg.664533/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/e6ufd7gwybydvyt-jpg.664534/

Pictures thanks to @Empire

None.

 

[Suslova]

Taken from Wiki

Ahhh... I never noticed the Russian Wiki...My bad...

 

[F-14ATomcat]

...

The data might be wrong but it was from the airshow of Moscow, in front of it was a board that said that data.

ÐÐÐС-2015, ÑкÑпозиÑÐ¸Ñ ÐÐÐа ÐиР1.44 ÐФÐ

ÐиР1.44 ÐФР(Ð¾Ñ Ð¼Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ÑÑнкÑионалÑнÑй ÑÑонÑовой иÑÑÑебиÑелÑ; в ÑеÑии должен бÑл полÑÑиÑÑ Ð½Ð°Ð·Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ ÐиÐ-35) â опÑÑно-ÑкÑпеÑименÑалÑнÑй ÑоÑÑийÑкий пÑоÑоÑип иÑÑÑебиÑÐµÐ»Ñ Ð¿ÑÑого поколениÑ...

topwar.ru

this video prove it

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBB33mzgwfk

 

[paralay]

Calculated values according to the simplified methodology

MiG 1.42 (not 1.44)
Minimum RCS 3.1 m2
The maximum RCS is 13.1 m2

Su-57
the minimum RCS is 0.43 m2
the maximum RCS is 6.43 m2

F-22
the minimum RCS is 0.35 m2
the maximum RCS is 4.35 m2

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Calculated values according to the simplified methodology

MiG 1.42 (not 1.44)
Minimum RCS 3.1 m2
The maximum RCS is 13.1 m2

Su-57
the minimum RCS is 0.43 m2
the maximum RCS is 6.43 m2

F-22
the minimum RCS is 0.35 m2
the maximum RCS is 4.35 m2

one question since you like the MiG 1.44 why the data says 17.3 meters length? it seems bigger but that board was from 2015 MAKS, do you think it was a mistake or indeed it is the length?

 

[flateric]

The data might be wrong but it was from the airshow of Moscow, in front of it was a board that said that data.

What does it change?

 

[F-14ATomcat]

What does it change?

I do not understand you well so I will guess, the MAKS board says 17.3 meters length, but it seems bigger, the canopy seems very similar to the one of MiG-29, so it seems bigger, if the data from MAKS is wrong well it changes the accuracy of the data, only that.

 

[Suslova]

Calculated values according to the simplified methodology

MiG 1.42 (not 1.44)
Minimum RCS 3.1 m2
The maximum RCS is 13.1 m2

Su-57
the minimum RCS is 0.43 m2
the maximum RCS is 6.43 m2

F-22
the minimum RCS is 0.35 m2
the maximum RCS is 4.35 m2

Maybe,when the Mig MFI was finally completed（Well, this is related to What if）,the RCS of Mig MFI can be controlled to a considerable degree

 

[donnage99]

That's a hypothetical non point. anything can be rcs improved given enough time money and brain powers. even if the shape isn't starting point for stealth with today's best technology, in a hundred years they'll figure out a workaround. Fact is that the shape of the aircraft is frozen. program cancelled. when the time political motivation and money were available, the aircraft stayed in the museum while sukhoi went on to build su57

 

[AGS-1787]

I always thought this aircraft was more like a Eurofighter equivalent, I didn’t know it was meant to become stealthy.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I do not understand you well so I will guess, the MAKS board says 17.3 meters length, but it seems bigger, the canopy seems very similar to the one of MiG-29, so it seems bigger, if the data from MAKS is wrong well it changes the accuracy of the data, only that.

Hint - MiG-29K length is 17.3m. MiG-29K span is 11.99m.

If you think 1.44 was the same size as the MiG-29K, you probably need to visit an optician.

Yes, the info board at MAKS was a load of nonsense. Probably printed by an intern based on Wikipedia.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I always thought this aircraft was more like a Eurofighter equivalent, I didn’t know it was meant to become stealthy.

It was supposed to be 'stealthy' as Mikoyan understood the technology in mid 80s which was some kind of reduced observables. Conformal/internal weapons carriage, avoid showing compressor faces, await magical RAM development.

 

[Suslova]

I always thought this aircraft was more like a Eurofighter equivalent, I didn’t know it was meant to become stealthy.

Well, The Russians noted that the MFI project took “stealth” into account during its development; however, constrained by the Soviet Union’s shortcomings in related technologies, from today’s perspective the MFI can hardly be a "comprehensive stealth design"——They can only implement some basic designs

— снижение заметности в радиолокационном, электромагнитном, тепловом и оптическом спектрах в определенных ракурсах (в первую очередь в переднюю полусферу), но не за счет летных данных, которые являются главным средством достижения победы в воздушном бою;

 

[flateric]

I believe that Sergey Ignatyev scale drawings for M-Hobby were made using measurements of original article. Level of details was just impossible without access to it or original documentation in 2004.

https://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/mig142mh.html

Plus you always have Google Earth with ruler, LII photos and retrospective shots.

 

[paralay]

Well, The Russians noted that the MFI project took “stealth” into account during its development; however, constrained by the Soviet Union’s shortcomings in related technologies, from today’s perspective the MFI can hardly be a "comprehensive stealth design"——They can only implement some basic designs

In the 1970s, the Russians carried out work to reduce the visibility of ships. Serial Soviet ships after 1985 had a radio-absorbing coating.
As long as the enemy did not have stealth aircraft, this option was not used on production aircraft.

MiG sizes 1.44 and 1.42

 

[F-2]

I always thought this aircraft was more like a Eurofighter equivalent, I didn’t know it was meant to become stealthy.

I think before the ATF was a stealth program some of the design concepts were similar to both aircraft.

I sort of imagine MFI and Typhoon would have been employed similarly.

 

[flateric]

As long as the enemy did not have stealth aircraft, this option was not used on production aircraft.

Once more, RAM/RAS was used in series as early as 1970 on Tu-143 Reis.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

In the 1970s, the Russians carried out work to reduce the visibility of ships. Serial Soviet ships after 1985 had a radio-absorbing coating.
As long as the enemy did not have stealth aircraft, this option was not used on production aircraft.

MiG sizes 1.44 and 1.42

Thank you, that was what I wanted to know 20.7 meters, I know about the satellite pictures, I did my estimates but I never really payed much attention into a concrete number.

I am also a great fan of MiG-1.44, I make models, and I have made the MiG-1.44 many times I just finished a Su-47 but I am unsure if to make it with flat nozzles or regular ones.

Any way I like your drawings, keep the good work

 

[paralay]

Su-47 is also possible with flat nozzles, but with the correct nozzles

 

[Suslova]

thank you, kind of nostalgic the MiG 1.44 had a lot of potential, it was a 4.5 generation fighter

definitively that generation of fighters were a response to the Eurofighter and Gripen

From my personal perspective, I tend to view the MiG 1.44 as a 5th fighter. Or...more strictly, a demonstrator prototype for a 5th fighter.

Well… on the information I’ve seen in Russian sources, the MFI project saw the Soviets exploring the concept of "future air combat" with an unprecedented approach — fundamentally different from aircraft like the Eurofighter or the Gripen

Besides the traditional goal of "achieving air superiority," "penetration" was also given a high priority. Of course, unlike the Americans, the Soviets weren’t able to achieve VLO in their design...

Oh well, back to the point, your model is really great, nice job ;-)

 

[F-14ATomcat]

From my personal perspective, I tend to view the MiG 1.44 as a 5th fighter. Or...more strictly, a demonstrator prototype for a 5th fighter.

Well… on the information I’ve seen in Russian sources, the MFI project saw the Soviets exploring the concept of "future air combat" with an unprecedented approach — fundamentally different from aircraft like the Eurofighter or the Gripen

Besides the traditional goal of "achieving air superiority," "penetration" was also given a high priority. Of course, unlike the Americans, the Soviets weren’t able to achieve VLO in their design...

Oh well, back to the point, your model is really great, nice job ;-)

thanks

The air intake is too boxy on MiG-1.44, it has radar corner reflectors, the canards had dog teeth good for diffraction, the MiG-1.44 was no stealth, but definitively was a more ambitious aircraft than the Eurofighter.

It had rudders on the ventral fins and like X-29 it had wing trailing edge extensions with flaps, the aircraft was designed to be really agile





the fore body was cambered like a wing


I love the design one of my favorite aircraft but it was no more than an Eurofighter on steroids

 

[F-2]

Canard placement looks to be a compromise between Eurofighter long arm and Rafale/Gripen/Lavi short arm Canards. J-10 has a similar design solution.

 

[Ainen]

I love the design one of my favorite aircraft but it was no more than an Eurofighter on steroids

To be fair, performance steroids were quite significant - eurofighter was more directly comparable to what LFI (4.12) was meant to be in size and probably performance.

Plus way more money and resources was poured into MFI components (engines, radar, etc). This leaves it somewhat in the middle - as individual parts of this aircraft appear to be more on ATF rather than on Eurofighter level.

But parts don't fight, aircraft does. And conceptually / overall, 1.42 (4.12, s-37) are effectively unborn Russian eurocanards.
Which is probably why all got canned halfway - F-22 first flight was their collective doom.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

To be fair, performance steroids were quite significant - eurofighter was more directly comparable to what LFI (4.12) was meant to be in size and probably performance.

Plus way more money and resources was poured into MFI components (engines, radar, etc). This leaves it somewhat in the middle - as individual parts of this aircraft appear to be more on ATF rather than on Eurofighter level.

But parts don't fight, aircraft does. And conceptually / overall, 1.42 (4.12, s-37) are effectively unborn Russian eurocanards.
Which is probably why all got canned halfway - F-22 first flight was their collective doom.

A lot has to do with the air intake


If you look the basic configuration of MiG-144 follows the F-16 forebody and air intake configuration.

But the problem for the MiG was it is twin engined and needed two very large in frontal cross section air intakes, this meant the intakes were two big, so they made a large forebody wider than the one of F-16, but following the F-16 cambered forebody nose section, but making it too wide was excessive drag so they made the canards mounted in fairings which reduced the width of the fore body so the transition is different to the Eurofighter



on the Eurofighter they repeated the Panavia Tornado configuration making a bullet that is very thin in the nose and gradually the fuselage widens to the same width of both engines in frontal cross section and they curved the intake lips wrapping to some degree the fuselage with the air intake


But so far I only think it is just an Eurofighters in steroids due to the extra aerodynamic controls it had and thrust vectoring

 

[Suslova]

The air intake is too boxy on MiG-1.44, it has radar corner reflectors, the canards had dog teeth good for diffraction, the MiG-1.44 was no stealth, but definitively was a more ambitious aircraft than the Eurofighter.

Oh, BTW, regarding the canard, MiG engineers once said:

“Modern 5th generation fighters usually do not have a canard. How does a canard affect stealth? Answering this question, the General Designer noted: "The main principle of any aircraft designer is compromise and compromise again. When you take into account one factor, other factors can be weakened to a greater or lesser extent, and it is impossible to achieve the ideal in all directions. As for stealth, is there any standard?”

Современные истребители 5 поколения обычно не имеют ПГО. Как ПГО влияет на малозаметность? Отвечая на это вопрос Генеральный конструктор отметил: «Главный принцип любого авиационного конструктора заключается в компромиссе и еще раз компромиссе. Когда вы учитываете один фактор, другие факторы в большей или меньшей степени могут ослабнуть, и невозможно достичь идеала по всем направлениям. Что касается малозаметности, то что есть стандарт?

Ambiguous view ;-)

 

[Geo]

Oh, BTW, regarding the canard, MiG engineers once said:

“Modern 5th generation fighters usually do not have a canard. How does a canard affect stealth? Answering this question, the General Designer noted: "The main principle of any aircraft designer is compromise and compromise again. When you take into account one factor, other factors can be weakened to a greater or lesser extent, and it is impossible to achieve the ideal in all directions. As for stealth, is there any standard?”



Ambiguous view ;-)

Exactly.
And it is no coincidence that OKB MiG incorporated canards into most of the well-known "post 1.42/1.44" designs, such as the "Самолёт 602", the E-721/LMFS, or the concept presented at MAKS 2021 as the PMKI (Izdeliye 49?).
It's quite possible that canards are still one of the signs of the "Mikoyan school" within the current UAC combat aircraft division.

 

[Suslova]

Oh, BTW, regarding the canard

“The PMC used on the outer surface of the fuselage of the flight test platform 1.44 (ЛЛ 1.44)”

Wingtip device: 7.0 kg
Ailerons: 15.0 kg
Patches: 5.9 kg
Upper wing panel: 5.3 kg
Side panels: 5.5 kg
Hatch covers: 7.0 kg
Ventral fin: 16.1 kg
Rudder: 14.8 kg
Vertical tail: 23.5 kg
Cancards: 30.6 kg

Total area of external panels made of polymer composite materials — 144 m²
Total mass of external panels made of polymer composite materials — 1705 kg

The MiG engineers pinned their hopes on the miraculous RAM/RAS, supplemented by limited stealth shaping ;-)

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Oh, BTW, regarding the canard, MiG engineers once said:

“Modern 5th generation fighters usually do not have a canard. How does a canard affect stealth? Answering this question, the General Designer noted: "The main principle of any aircraft designer is compromise and compromise again. When you take into account one factor, other factors can be weakened to a greater or lesser extent, and it is impossible to achieve the ideal in all directions. As for stealth, is there any standard?”



Ambiguous view ;-)

a designer must know that every solution has advantages and disadvantages, add that what today works, tomorrow might be rendered obsolete or useless.

Stealth is an ambiguous term too. because as detection technology advances what today is stealth tomorrow it is not..

Setting a canard has advantages, but since it will be moving and above wing level masking it to reduce its radar signature is not easy so it is highly recommended not use it, but the MiG-1.44 was no stealth in terms of planform alignment, corner reflectors deletion.

If it used EW or some kind of plasma technology I do not know

 

[Ainen]

The MiG engineers pinned their hopes on the miraculous RAM/RAS, supplemented by limited stealth shaping ;-)

Tbh I don't think they did, otherwise it would've been shaped differently.
Just like other eurocanards, there was probably a limited requirement for forward RCS reduction, which they complied with.

 

[Suslova]

Tbh I don't think they did, otherwise it would've been shaped differently.
Just like other eurocanards, there was probably a limited requirement for forward RCS reduction, which they complied with.

In Chinese materials, I saw this explanation, about the canards had dog teeth:

“However, there is a view that this configuration has a significant impact on stealth performance. In fact, the impact cannot be completely absent; however, if the design is the result of rigorous calculations, such echoes can still be redirected through multiple reflections between the serrations toward directions that pose less of a threat.”

不过有一种观点认为该设机对隐身性能有极大影响，实际上影响不可能完全没有，不过倘若是经过严格计算的设计，这种回波实际上仍然可以通过锯齿间的多次反射而导向其他威胁性较小的方向

I‘m not sure...so...The authenticity of this statement should be left to the professionals

And...What I mean by “limited stealth shaping” refers only to the canted vertical tails on both sides, the ventral fins (this feature did not appear on the 1.44, but can be found on test models), and the curved air intakes (a feature mentioned in most sources)

That's all )

 

[Vepr157]

basically is optics of light applied to other electromagnetic waves frequencies,

That's an overly simplistic way to think about it. If radar returns from aircraft could be modeled with ray optics, Sir Isaac Newton could have designed a stealth aircraft.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

That's an overly simplistic way to think about it. If radar returns from aircraft could be modeled with ray optics, Sir Isaac Newton could have designed a stealth aircraft.

it is simple, the problem is power density, most airborne radars set on fighters are not powerful enough to detect stealth aircraft at practical ranges, because BVR missiles can be fired at longer ranges now.

Earlier generation radars on fighters, for Example F-15A or F/A-18A will not be effective to hunt a modern F-35, yes MiG-21 can see F-22 with its radar, but at a range the F-22 never will get to fire its BVR missiles, so most radars on fighters detect a F-35 at a range it is impractical, if the enemy supercruises, has very long AAMs and stealth, it will always fire its missiles at ranges the enemy radar due to limitation can not detect it.

Since electromagnetic waves have diffraction which basically is they go around corners, a very powerful radar always will see stealth aircraft, but the problem is most radars on fighters are not powerful enough, so fighter aircraft can use lower frequencies that behave more like waves than particles and are more immune to fighter shape stealth but are more difficult to use as an accurate firing solution.

 

[Vepr157]

@F-14ATomcat my point was that the analogies to optics above are too simplistic and not particularly instructive (also what's with all the random bolded sentences?).

 

[F-14ATomcat]

@F-14ATomcat my point was that the analogies to optics above are too simplistic and not particularly instructive (also what's with all the random bolded sentences?).

I respect your opinion, however they are not over simplistic, they are facts however light and electromagnetic waves have different features, reflection, diffraction, absorption, emission, reception, it is not a single phenomenon , thus to calculate the exact shape using aerodynamics, flight path and radar location within the power density of the radar makes more complex the design of an aircraft.

,

So when the MiG-1.44 was designed, compromises were made.


The general formula for an electromagnetic wave's amplitude as it attenuates over distance z is A(z) = A₀e⁻<binary data, 1 bytes><binary data, 1 bytes><binary data, 1 bytes>z
In physics, attenuation is the gradual loss of flux intensity through a medium.

Aircraft are designed upon tactics, which means how far you want to fire the missile, stealth is not black arts or magic, you experience stealth with your own eyes, at distance objects lose details simple like that and with distance they disappear it means they become stealth in few words your eyes can not see them despite they are there and at shorter distance you can see them..


MiG-1.44 was designed with very little stealth in mind, because they designed it in a time missiles were shorter in range, and F-117 was shot down with a primitive soviet radar, as time passes technology evolves and
MiG-1.44 became obsolete.


the Bold letters is just to highlight my main idea

 

[Vepr157]

The general formula for an electromagnetic wave's amplitude as it attenuates over distance z is A(z) = A₀e⁻<binary data, 1 bytes><binary data, 1 bytes><binary data, 1 bytes>z
In physics, attenuation is the gradual loss of flux intensity through a medium.

I have a physics degree, and I don't understand the relevance (the random bolding and italics does not make anything clearer). You don't need to invoke attenuation (by the atmosphere, presumably) to explain why radar returns decrease in intensity as the distance between the aircraft and the radar increases; that can to first order be explained simply by spherical spreading (i.e., the inverse square law).

Aircraft are designed upon tactics, which means how far you want to fire the missile, stealth is not black arts or magic, you experience stealth with your own eyes, at distance objects lose details simple like that and with distance they disappear it means they become stealth in few words your eyes can not see them despite they are there and at shorter distance you can see them..

If the point you are trying to make is that an aircraft will reflect more radar energy the closer it is to the radar, that's rather obvious. What point you're trying to make with regard to stealth I frankly have no clue. No one considers an F-16 that is 1,000 miles away from a radar "stealth" because that radar can't detect it.

I'm not sure this is a productive discussion worth continuing...