Russia sticks with the MIG-1.44?

griml0ck122

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
6
Pretty simple, what if the Russians don't flip flop around with their 5th gen program and decide to keep developing the Mig 1.44?
Would they have a 5th gen(ish) aircraft earlier? what would it's export potential be? how effective would it be?

my 2 cents are
It would be operational earlier that su-57, but the numbers would remain low. it might get some exports to the usual suspects, and china (who are probably going to rip one apart for engineering purposes). In terms of effectivness... probably on par with the su-57, with a slight disadvantage in stealth and versatility. It's no f-22 or j-20, but I think the mig could do the air superiority job fine against typhoons and f-15s, and put up a decent showing against US fifth gens.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
248
I wonder what the original service date would have been if the Cold War had continued?
 

Empire

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
103
Reaction score
11
To me the 1-44/42 would have been a souped up euro-fighter like design. If they had gone ahead with the project. Here is my take on the 1-42 design. Give the air intake a stealthy smiley face modification like a euro-fighter, RAM for the leading edges of the wings, vertical stabilizers, canards, and the intake edges plus interior. Internal weapons carriage. Stealthy radome design cant the dish. They probably could have got the front RCS down to a little better than the euro-fighter just because of the internal weapons bay.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,934
If the AL-41F variable cycle engines worked well, it would likely have been a supreme supercruiser, with great close-in agility, and a reduced RCS (say 0.1 sq m). Prototype did lack a weapons bay however.
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
I’ve been very curious on how the Mig 1.44 would have shaped up. It’s important to remember that the Mig 1.44 was like the YF-22/YF-23 in that it was more a proof of concept then a real combat aircraft. The hard part of development had yet to begin and with some fourth gen aircraft already in production and a general sense that a future combat aircraft would be more like the F-22 then say a delta canard type aircraft it makes sense it was canceled. Still I often wondered how the Mig 1.44 would have shaped up to be and compared to its contemporaries. Khai in the Ukraine did the subscale flight testing, I keep threatening to request documentation from them someday. It would be fun to compare it to the flankers and eurocanards.
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
How does the Su-47 compared to it ?
Su-47 has far more agility and maneuverability than MiG-1.44 because of its forward swept wings.
I actually wonder if any of these FSW fighters, the Su-47, X-29 etc, would have made viable production combat aircraft
I always thought the Su-47 with its working internal weapons bay, would have been a good combat aircraft especially in the export market.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
545
Reaction score
747
As Paralay, Paul, and F-2 have said the 1.44 had veryyyy different requirements than the ATF program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MFI program was to be an extension of the PVO umbrella; where as the ATF had all-aspect stealth to penetrate the Soviet defenses.
1. Super-cruise for threat reaction
2. Low frontal RCS
3. High fuel fraction/long loiter capability
4. Large weapons reserves
 

KimIrSen

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2021
Messages
8
Reaction score
9
I think comparing the MiG 1.44 to eurocanards misses themark, considering that the eurocanards were much smaller and shorter legged than the MFI fighter,who was massive even by russian standards. It would have been a pure fighter/interceptor. I doubt the russians would have exported it in the short term like they did with the Su 27 if they had the money to pursue MFI, since the soviets didn't export their top of the line designs like the Mig 31.
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
176
I think comparing the MiG 1.44 to eurocanards misses themark, considering that the eurocanards were much smaller and shorter legged than the MFI fighter,who was massive even by russian standards. It would have been a pure fighter/interceptor. I doubt the russians would have exported it in the short term like they did with the Su 27 if they had the money to pursue MFI, since the soviets didn't export their top of the line designs like the Mig 31.
I believe mfi was very much about producing a Multirole aircraft. Mfi is something like multi functional fighter in English. That said I feel like the Eurofighter it would be a multi role but air to air would be its primary job.
 

K00

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I believe mfi was very much about producing a Multirole aircraft. Mfi is something like multi functional fighter in English. That said I feel like the Eurofighter it would be a multi role but air to air would be its primary job.
I think the MFI was meant to be a pure air superiority platform at first, the LFI would then be its light multirole brother.

After funding for the LFI was withdrawn however, the MFI took a more multirole approach as well.
 

paralay

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
247
Reaction score
397
Website
www.paralay.ru

Attachments

  • 142.JPG
    142.JPG
    121.3 KB · Views: 99

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
The MiG 1.44 was first and foremost to be an air-defence platform for PVO; that puts the design drivers at a different point from the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen (and F-22). PVO had a tough job because of the sheer size of the Soviet Union's borders, and that means a longer-ranged* aircraft with a heavier fuel-fraction, limiting agility (and more so if it has to grow from the 1.42 to squeeze in an internal weapons bay). It would undoubtedly be more agile than the MiG-31, but with the requirements for long range, and stealth, and a heavy missile load, it may not have been the last word in agility. It may not even have been in the top 5, but as an interceptor, if you're relying on instantaneous agility, you're doing it wrong.

* Longer-range is not a positive in fighter design, range is rather a limiting factor because it forces size and weight growth. Range should be as much as needed for the mission and no more.
 
Last edited:

Empire

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
103
Reaction score
11
Thanks to MAKs we see how they would have cleaned up the fuselage RCS of the operational Mig-42. I think they would have kept the euro fighter style air intake ( not the side intakes of this notional aircraft carrier fighter pictured below) maybe copying the RCS reduction as seen on the typhoon. This style intake probably would have lead to a smaller internal weapons bay.
 

Attachments

  • E6ufKz4WYA0dtJx.jpg
    E6ufKz4WYA0dtJx.jpg
    703.2 KB · Views: 40
  • E6ufcapWYBQ5f_U.jpg
    E6ufcapWYBQ5f_U.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 31
  • E6ufd7gWYBYdvyt.jpg
    E6ufd7gWYBYdvyt.jpg
    958 KB · Views: 33

Similar threads

Top