• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

MiG PAK DP (Prospective Airborne Complex of Long-Range Intercept) Program (MiG-41)

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
63
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
All MiG has to do is dust of the 701 stealthy interceptor.
I still wonder why anybody thought that thing was stealthy.

Perhaps it was the shaping that made me think it was stealthy. Anyone got any pictures or design drawings of the 701? Flateric?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
571
Always reminds me of some of the earlier Tu-22 Blinder iterations.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434


This is more correct. And it would have been reduced RCS but not stealthy. Quite similar to an earlier NASA Langley study:

 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
This is probably lobbying by Mig since T-50 is very fast and can replace MiG-31. T-50 goes at mach 2.6 which is only a little slower than Mig-31.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,841
Reaction score
349
it doesn't go 'Mach 2.6'
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Not right now but with future stage 2 engines it will go that fast. Planform angle clearly point to mach 2.6 speed and design.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,841
Reaction score
349
can you explain us, how T-50 planform alignment 'clearly points at M2.6'?
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
T-50 wing planform angle has high sweep. F-15 has 45 degree sweep and can go mach 2.5. T-50 sweep is even larger at 46.5 degrees and wing is very far back which allows for very high mach cone. It should at least be greater than F-15's mach 2.5. Insiders on paralay.iboards.ru has leaked mach 2.6 speed.

Another thing to think about.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
That is a lot to extrapolate from minor variations in nose cones that are designed to aerodynamically shield radars.

Quite the leap (and not really a convincing one) - but I must salute whoever came up with this for creativity at least. :)
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
63
Having suggested in my previous post about dusting of the MiG 701 interceptor, I have now come to the conclusion, after thinking about it, that the best option for the Russian Air Force would be a brand new stealthy interceptor.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
75
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Ah, so we don't need to worry about engine performance, inlet dynamics, materials etc…we simply need to make sure its sharp enough with the nose angles… :eek: All those wasted engineering degree years... :'(
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
FighterJock said:
Having suggested in my previous post about dusting of the MiG 701 interceptor, I have now come to the conclusion, after thinking about it, that the best option for the Russian Air Force would be a brand new stealthy interceptor.
At supersonic speeds the IR signature from aerodynamic heating largely removes the point of stealth. Certainly any prolonged cruising above Mach 2 will make a fighter visible at long-range. The fight becomes a matter of kinetic energy and outflying enemy missiles at that point - so the 7.01 might still be about as viable as any high speed design.

In any case - one must say that the layout is truly gorgeous in its simplicity. The configuration is elegant - I'd love a model (not the one made for Butler's book though - one based on the drawing Overscan/Paul posted ;) ).
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
63
So what I am getting here is that there has to be a balance between speed and stealth but not both. :-\ :eek:
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
38
Very much. There are reports suggesting that missiles can engage supersonic targets at 50 km thanks to improvements in seeker technology, but on the other hand - there is some suggestion that lasers will be developed to attack the sensors of incoming missiles (which are vulnerable to lasers which are to weak to do damage otherwise). Passive stealth may not be the only game.
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Why would T-50 have such high planform sweep if not for mach 2.5+ speeds then? Theres also the complex variable intakes. You say materials but that do not mean the plane can't dash at mach 2.6 for a bit. Planform sweep angle and intakes don't make sense unless for mach 2.5+ speed.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
571
EricChase88 said:
Why would T-50 have such high planform sweep if not for mach 2.5+ speeds then? Theres also the complex variable intakes. You say materials but that do not mean the plane can't dash at mach 2.6 for a bit. Planform sweep angle and intakes don't make sense unless for mach 2.5+ speed.
Obviously the F-117 is the fastest of this bunch:




(Just FYI, the F-22A is faster than the YF-22 despite the latter's sharper angles. Then there's the YF-23. . .)
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Unlike F-117 the T-50 has much more thrust and much more area ruled. Compared to other fighters of similar era and role and you see the T-50 planform sweep is higher than the rest. The planform angle clearly points to mach 2.6 speed. Otherwise this big sweep is unnessessary.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
571
EricChase88 said:
Unlike F-117 the T-50 has much more thrust and much more area ruled. Compared to other fighters of similar era and role and you see the T-50 planform sweep is higher than the rest. The planform angle clearly points to mach 2.6 speed. Otherwise this big sweep is unnessessary.
Here's your argument boiled down, "I want it to be able to fly Mach 2.6 therefore it can".
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
With high planform sweep angle, powerful engines coming up and complex variable intakes, this all point to a max dash speed of mach 2.6. Insiders on paralay.iboards.ru has leaked mach 2.6 speed.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
571
EricChase88 said:
With high planform sweep angle, powerful engines coming up and complex variable intakes, this all point to a max dash speed of mach 2.6. Insiders on paralay.iboards.ru has leaked mach 2.6 speed.
I'll believe it when I see it.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,670
Reaction score
110
EricChase88 said:
With high planform sweep angle, powerful engines coming up and complex variable intakes, this all point to a max dash speed of mach 2.6. Insiders on paralay.iboards.ru has leaked mach 2.6 speed.
1) I'll trust our insider (Flateric), who has been shown to be consistently correct, over anyone at Paralay's site.

2) The leading edge wing sweep is around 46 degrees, which corresponds to a critical mach number of M=1.39. However, that's assuming you're seeing free stream velocity at the wing, which you aren't. The important number, with regard to maximum speed, would be the angle between the nose and the front of the wingtip (keeping the wing within the shock cone off of the nose). That angle is about 63 degrees which corresponds with a Mach number of 2.2, which is definitely not 2.6.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
Sundog said:
EricChase88 said:
With high planform sweep angle, powerful engines coming up and complex variable intakes, this all point to a max dash speed of mach 2.6. Insiders on paralay.iboards.ru has leaked mach 2.6 speed.
1) I'll trust our insider (Flateric), who has been shown to be consistently correct, over anyone at Paralay's site.

2) The leading edge wing sweep is around 46 degrees, which corresponds to a critical mach number of M=1.39. However, that's assuming you're seeing free stream velocity at the wing, which you aren't. The important number, with regard to maximum speed, would be the angle between the nose and the front of the wingtip (keeping the wing within the shock cone off of the nose). That angle is about 63 degrees which corresponds with a Mach number of 2.2, which is definitely not 2.6.
That is correct. Fly above that speed and your wingtips are likely to be torn off by the shock waves from the nose. Mach 2.1 is the likely design maximum. If Mach 2.6 was the design point the nose would need to be longer or the wingspan reduced.
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
3
kcran567 said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Can't see many options beyond a (stretched?) version of T-50 with extra fuel and 5th gen engines.

yes, a stretched, cranked arrow version of Pakfa.





Have to comment, that 3rd image does look curiously like a organically morphed/stealthed-up XF-108..
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
So why does MiG-25 has nose to wingtip angle of 65 degrees and can make mach 2.8?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,670
Reaction score
110
EricChase88 said:
So why does MiG-25 has nose to wingtip angle of 65 degrees and can make mach 2.8?
Depends on the flight regime. If you're flying straight and level and the wing is built heavy you can do it, but your drag is going to WAY up. It's also going to be much less fuel efficient than not doing it and you had better hope the shock waves don't excite the wing into a natural frequency (flutter).
 

Kryptid

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
275
Reaction score
4
Website
www.facebook.com
EricChase88 said:
Otherwise this big sweep is unnessessary.
Planform sweep is designed for factors other than speed, you know. Weight, internal fuel volume, the lift curve, critical mach number, stall angle, and radar signature are affected by it (either directly or indirectly). The Typhoon, F-16XL and Tejas have leading-edge sweeps greater than the T-50's, but cannot reach Mach 2.6. Does this mean that their large wingsweeps are unnecessary? No. It means that factors other than just speed affected the choice of sweep.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
Sundog said:
EricChase88 said:
So why does MiG-25 has nose to wingtip angle of 65 degrees and can make mach 2.8?
Depends on the flight regime. If you're flying straight and level and the wing is built heavy you can do it, but your drag is going to WAY up. It's also going to be much less fuel efficient than not doing it and you had better hope the shock waves don't excite the wing into a natural frequency (flutter).

Indeed. Early MiG-25s had exactly this problem and needed reinforced wing structure and anti-flutter weights at the wingtips.
 

Bill Walker

Per Ardua ad Nauseum
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
482
Reaction score
3
Website
rwrwalker.ca
EricChase88 said:
With high planform sweep angle, powerful engines coming up and complex variable intakes, this all point to a max dash speed of mach 2.6. Insiders on paralay.iboards.ru has leaked mach 2.6 speed.
So, all those years I spent studying aerodynamics and aircraft performance were a waste of time? NOW you tell me.....
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=351397l

T-50 will be 2600 km/ h speed and 10 bombs in weapon bay. With this speed and bay size the Mig-31 is not needed.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
EricChase88 said:
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=351397l

T-50 will be 2600 km/ h speed and 10 bombs in weapon bay. With this speed and bay size the Mig-31 is not needed.

No, no.


2600km/h quotes are all from 2010 mainstream news sources or sourced from these articles and come from lazy journalists looking up T-50 on wikipedia. I would put as much faith in their sources as I put in yours i.e. none.
 

RadicalDisconnect

Anthony Foulke
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
Not this again...

Our resident PAK FA insider flateric made it pretty clear that the original maximum speed RFP was 2500 km/h, which eventually got reduced to 2300 km/h, and then to 2135 km/h in 2004 as per Sukhoi's request. I suppose we'll wait and see if the T-50 will make the original RFP spec with the Izd.30 engines.
 

EricChase88

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Many sources including airforce-technology below give 2600 km/ h speed, some quite recent. Stage 2 engines are meant to make this happen.

http://www.newsru.com/russia/18jun2010/tu_50.html
http://in.rbth.com/articles/2013/01/11/russian_fifth-generation_jet_fighter_takes_off_21557.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/sukhoit50stealthfigh/
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,841
Reaction score
349
oh, these sources...
much more reliable than RuAF commander direct citations regarding RFP and composite matrix maximum T tables, sure
 

Reaper

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
204
Reaction score
5
The Russians have the Indians as a risk sharing partner / money provider for the T-50. I dont think that they have so much money for several different development programs at the time. At the same time why do you need a fighter intercepter design like the MiG-31 anymore?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
flateric said:
oh, these sources...
much more reliable than RuAF commander direct citations regarding RFP and composite matrix maximum T tables, sure

airforce-technology.com - run by a company from ICT and Public sector market analysis. I'm sure their insider knowledge of Russian Aviation industry is spot on.


EricChase88, you are close to a post ban for general ignorance. Please try to engage your brain cells before posting.
 
Top