Level “hypersound”: MiG-41 can get a unique missile system


Hypersonic weapons: USA and Russia



Recognize the degree of threat emanating from hypersonic weapons, perhaps only by examples. You can talk arbitrarily for a long time about the superiority of Russia in the creation of hypersonic weapons, but so far all the information about the X-47M2 “Dagger”, “Zircon” and “Vanguard” give rise to more questions than answers. The first specialists are most often called not hypersonic, but an aeroballistic complex based on the Iskander. All that we saw on the Zircon are two transport and launch missile containers aboard the Admiral Gorshkov frigate, which are supposedly intended for this very complex. In turn, the “Vanguard” is sometimes even called a “step back” in comparison with conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine ballistic missiles, if we talk about the destructive power of weapons.

But the Americans are not doing well either: this is visible even through the prism of American propaganda. In February, it became known that the United States closed due to lack of funds the project to create an air-launched hypersonic missile Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, the carriers of which were to become fighters and bombers. However, he left with himself another similar project - ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon). This project, according to available data, is a solid-fuel aeroballistic missile with a warhead, the role of which is played by a detachable hypersonic warhead with a Tactical Boost Glide engine. With our own eyes we saw him last year - as a mass-size model suspended under the wing of the B-52H strategic bomber.


Interestingly, the speed of the war block, according to Western sources, can reach 20 Machs. If this is true, then the speed of the ARRW combat equipment is approximately two times higher than the speed of the “Dagger” and, probably, Zircon, although the latter, we repeat, is definitely too early to judge.

It is no secret that the United States traditionally focuses on air power and navy, not forgetting, however, about ground forces. Last year, information appeared about a land-based hypersonic complex under the uncomplicated name Hypersonic Weapons System (for the US Army). We recall that it is a two-container complex towed by an Oshkosh M983A4 tractor. And the concept is based on the multi-functional highly maneuverable planning hypersonic warhead Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). Earlier it was reported that its warhead can be created on the basis of the warhead Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), which in theory can reach Mach 8. Not as impressive as ARRW, but still.

On the whole, on the issue of developing hypersonic systems, the United States clearly does not look like an outsider: neither against Russia, nor against China, or against anyone else. Rather, all other countries need to survive. And they understand that.

Complex of usefulness


Since Russia does not have the financial capabilities of the United States, the answer will have to be “cheap and cheerful.” On February 12, Izvestia reported, citing a source in the military-industrial complex, that an ultra-long-range air-based missile is being designed in the Russian Federation for the Soviet MiG-31 and the promising MiG-41. The product has the unpronounceable name MFRK DP (multifunctional long-range interception missile system). It is designed to intercept "complex targets", namely, hypersonic blocks of promising American missiles. Allegedly, today they have already carried out theoretical research on the air-to-air missile, which has a divided warhead. Now determine the technical details of the complex.


It is worth noting immediately that this is not a rocket, but a complex with a capital letter, which has several main components. If you summarize all the data, the principle of the system looks something like this:

1. An interceptor fighter launches a carrier capable of flying about 200 kilometers.
2. A unit with several air-to-air missiles is detached from the carrier.
3. Using active radar homing heads, these missiles seek out and hit targets.

The flight of thought really strikes the most daring imagination: against the background of such weapons even the mythical two-stage KS-172 fades, which should (should?) Have a range of about 400 kilometers. The main question can be formulated as follows: who needs such a complex complex and why? In short, it is designed to dramatically increase the chances of successfully repelling a blow with a hypersonic weapon. “An ordinary anti-aircraft missile has one warhead,” military expert Dmitry Kornev said earlier. - The probability of a miss on a hypersonic maneuvering target is very high. But if one ammunition carries several homing shells, then the chances of hitting a high-speed object are significantly increased. ”

In general, it seems that we are talking about a massive blow, since in this case conventional means can indeed prove to be powerless. The most interesting thing is the choice of submunition. That is, a rocket, which should become a thunderstorm of maneuvering hypersonic blocks. One of the voiced candidates - promising aviation medium-range missile K-77M, which is the next version of the RVV-AE or R-77.

Level “hypersound”: MiG-41 can get a unique missile system

K-77M should have a very long launch range, and in addition be relatively compact: the missile should be located in the internal compartments of the Su-57. In this regard, one involuntarily recalls the mysterious product shown last year at the exhibition of the Vympel NGO, which is part of the Tactical Missile Arms Corporation. Recall that the missile presented then, according to experts, was significantly shorter than any known version of the RVV-AE. There are other differences. "The nozzle is wider, which may indicate that it (a rocket. - Approx. Aut.) Has the ability to control the thrust vector," then wrote the Western media.


The missile, judging by the appearance of the bare part, has an active homing radar head. All of this theoretically fits into the requirements of the IFPC DP. By the way, it is appropriate to recall that in addition to the K-77M, there is also the K-77ME project - roughly speaking, a similar product, but with an increased flight range.

Again MiG-25


Finally, the most exciting thing for aircraft enthusiasts is the new-generation MiG-41 fighter-interceptor project, which is now mentioned again. In the West, for some reason they like to call him the "sixth generation" (let us leave this on their conscience). As we know, the MiG-31 in the broad sense is a deeply modernized MiG-25, which made its first flight in 1964. Whatever one may do, it’s very, very difficult to make an aircraft of the 31st century out of the 41st: if only because of a mismatch with modern requirements of maneuverability, economy and radar stealth. In turn, the promising fighter, the MiG-25, should be a completely new platform, while maintaining the main trump card of the MiG-31/XNUMX, namely, very high speed.


The data provided by Izvestia once again shows that the MiG-41 is not just a “phantom”, but a real project. It is worth recalling that back in 2018, the CEO of MiG Corporation Ilya Tarasenko said that the MiG-41 is not an invention, and the Russian aircraft building corporation will present the results of work on the creation of a new fifth-generation fighter in the foreseeable future. It’s worth mentioning right away that absolutely all MiG-41 images “walking” on the Web have almost nothing to do with the aircraft. Therefore, such statements are the only thing we have now.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. KCA
    KCA 24 February 2020 05: 56 New
    • 38
    • 5
    +33
    Again, exhausting at least something from the finger in the absence of any real data, and we still drive the cart with the British Likeies, we ourselves do not have an article about armaments, only Hayly and Likeley, the greatest, most famous media specializing in Izvestia’s military analytics, on technology and armaments believe that ..., and I believe that Izvestia has become some kind of yellow, even a little brown
    1. bessmertniy 24 February 2020 06: 21 New
      • 7
      • 12
      -5
      Hypersound is marked with a checkmark that it is, and that’s good. But much remains behind the scenes and does not give a clear understanding of how good this is for us. Let's hope that gradually the veil of secrecy will be removed, and it will become clear - how much we were better than others in this. hi
      1. KCA
        KCA 24 February 2020 06: 32 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        It is marked with quotation marks not as non-existent, but as a common common collective name for hypersonic weapons, such as, for example, "there are pistons, gears and other" tripe "in the car’s engine
      2. zenion 13 May 2020 17: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Some authors simply like to tell how bear cubs open safes. At the same time, they themselves cannot open the door of their own apartment, but they suggest you take a word that they cannot open the door of the apartment, but they know how to open the safes. It turns out, like the Germans, when the T-34 appeared in front of them, about which they had no idea. They did not even think that such a tank could be made. The Germans had to do similar by the end of the war. In general, a secret is a secret, and if something is revealed, it is only such that the enemy would believe that it is a scam and there is no such thing, there is only a tick, that is, a bird and no missiles.
    2. Constanty 24 February 2020 10: 07 New
      • 14
      • 1
      +13
      An old joke reminded me: “There is no truth in Izvestia, there is no news in Truth” laughing
      1. Krasnoyarsk 24 February 2020 11: 54 New
        • 15
        • 4
        +11
        Quote: Constanty
        An old joke reminded me: “There is no truth in Izvestia, there is no news in Truth” laughing

        Oddly enough, but today, many who have visited the "West" claim that what Pravda wrote about turned out to be true.
        1. Octopus 24 February 2020 12: 35 New
          • 10
          • 4
          +6
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          many who have visited the "West" claim that what Pravda wrote about turned out to be true.

          Are you talking about Margarita Simonyan?
          1. Krasnoyarsk 24 February 2020 13: 23 New
            • 5
            • 5
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            Are you talking about Margarita Simonyan?

            There were even no thoughts.
            1. Octopus 24 February 2020 13: 55 New
              • 13
              • 5
              +8
              And who else keeps a regular heading "Tales of the West for people without a trip?" Brilev?
              1. Krasnoyarsk 24 February 2020 17: 52 New
                • 10
                • 4
                +6
                Quote: Octopus
                And who else keeps a regular heading "Tales of the West for people without a trip?" Brilev?

                I relate to her fairly evenly. She does something abroad that neither I, nor you, who criticize her, can do. And it does, as it seems, not bad. What are your complaints about it?
                1. Octopus 24 February 2020 20: 58 New
                  • 6
                  • 8
                  -2
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  She does something abroad that neither I, nor you, who criticize her, can do.

                  )))
                  He rubs his glasses to his superiors, squandering a half-yard of folk money a year?

                  Yes, you are right, in vain I will troll her. Envy is not good.
                  1. Voyager 25 February 2020 10: 20 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Yes, you are right, in vain I will troll her.

                    Don't flatter yourself
      2. andrewkor 24 February 2020 17: 14 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        I’ll supplement, with your permission, "... there remains" Labor "for three pennies."
      3. PPD
        PPD 25 February 2020 10: 38 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Continuing about the Truth-
        There is the city of Pushkino along the Yaroslavl Railway and the stations near it, respectively, Pushkino, Ilyich’s Testament and Pravda.
        So the joke still goes-the closer to the Truth, the farther from the precepts of Ilyich and vice versa-
        the closer to the precepts of Ilyich, the farther from the truth .. lol
      4. musketon64 25 February 2020 14: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        At the newsstand: “There is no truth”, “Izvestia” ended, only “Trud” remained.
    3. NEXUS 24 February 2020 10: 19 New
      • 18
      • 2
      +16
      Quote: KCA
      and I suppose that Izvestia has become some kind of yellow color, even a little with brown

      All the media in the world have become this color, without exception. This is an info war and here all the ways are good to douse the enemy with excrement and catch up with horror.
      As for these complexes, the more often you insert the prefix "hyper", the cooler it sounds. MIG-41 is not in nature yet, however, it has been said so much about it that there is a feeling that it is, only so secret that no one saw it.
      We have on the agenda the launch of the SU-57 series, and not the MIG-41. Well, the fact that the media love to engage in verbal masturbation is not news.
      1. KCA
        KCA 24 February 2020 10: 28 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Yes, there’s no way to pour or catch up, it seems that Izvestia, AiF and REN-TV have one owner, the news stories of Izvestia are constantly on REN, as a result, once the professional editions of Izvestia and AiF slipped to the level REN-TV, and it seems that all military analysts are from there, it’s worth watching the “Military Secret” or other crap on REN, where they even speak briefly about weapons, all doubts disappear
      2. Krasnoyarsk 24 February 2020 11: 57 New
        • 8
        • 8
        0
        Quote: NEXUS

        We have on the agenda the launch of the SU-57 series, and not the MIG-41. Well, the fact that the media love to engage in verbal masturbation is not news.

        The launch of the SU-57 series does not interfere with DEVELOPMENT, and it MUST be MIG-41.
        1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 13: 08 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          The launch of the SU-57 series does not interfere with DEVELOPMENT, and it MUST be MIG-41

          Do you know that setting up production, fine-tuning an aircraft and R&D for a new machine - does it all cost money? Pulling one project is easier, both in logistics and financial aspects, than two, three, four projects. And we are not only the Su-57 and are engaged in a promising interceptor.
        2. NEXUS 24 February 2020 13: 14 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          The launch of the SU-57 series does not interfere with DEVELOPMENT, and it MUST be MIG-41.

          It interferes and even really interferes. They asked themselves the question, why are we developing only a new heavy fighter, and not a couple, along with a light one? Why the USA F-35 is planing what year, and they have no new heavy fighter and are not expected in the near future. The raptor was good in the 90s or in the noughties ... now he has lost all his advantages.
          No one has stupid money for a fighter couple. That is why we are pulling India into the project, and the USA, when developing the F-35, brought other allies (vassals) to this business.
          1. Krasnoyarsk 24 February 2020 13: 22 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: NEXUS

            They asked themselves the question, why are we developing only a new heavy fighter, and not a couple, along with a light one? Why USA F-35

            Are you sure that we are not developing light?
            But, it is quite possible that you are right.
          2. Octopus 24 February 2020 13: 53 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            The raptor was good in the 90s or in the noughties ... now he has lost all his advantages.

            What is it?
            1. Alt-right 24 February 2020 22: 19 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: Octopus
              What is it?

              I have the same opinion. laughing
              What's so new about us in aviation that it’s capable of, apart from being piece-wise, capable of destroying almost 2 hundred F-22s? Well, so that the "benefits are lost"!)
              1. Octopus 24 February 2020 22: 51 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Alt-Right
                What's so new about us in aviation

                More important missing from radar The raptor is gaining blocks with the penguin. Already the 40th in the yard.
                1. Alt-right 24 February 2020 23: 01 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  More importantly, the Raptor missing from the radar is picking up blocks with the penguin. Already the 40th in the yard.

                  And this is not to mention the development of F / A-XX.
                  1. Octopus 24 February 2020 23: 16 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Quote: Alt-Right
                    not to mention the development of F / A-XX.

                    There is nothing to talk about. When and if it flies, then we'll talk.
                    1. Alt-right 24 February 2020 23: 43 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      There is nothing to talk about. When and if it flies, then we'll talk.

                      The same thing can be said about the Mig-41 .....
                      1. Octopus 24 February 2020 23: 49 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        Quote: Alt-Right
                        The same thing about the Mig-41

                        The instant will not fly, there’s nothing to talk about. F / A is unlikely, it makes no sense.
              2. Voyager 25 February 2020 10: 24 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                There is nothing super-special about the F-22. In fact, the same fighter as everyone else and it gets off just like everyone else. In some situations, even simpler than the rest. The issue is detection, but for our country it is not worth it.
              3. NEXUS 25 February 2020 16: 32 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: Alt-Right
                What's so new about us in aviation that it’s capable of, apart from piece-wise, capable of destroying almost 2 hundred F-22s?

                Triumphs and S-300V4, for example ... enough? Moreover, these 200 dinosaurs can stick very quickly.
            2. NEXUS 25 February 2020 16: 35 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              What is it?

              What supernatural is the pangolin today? wassat This is how our air defense systems see it as a maize. The software is outdated, one radar, the coating is always falling off, the hour of summer is like a good car. What service is there if the assembly line is turned off?
              And where is the replacement for him? fellow
              1. Octopus 25 February 2020 17: 01 New
                • 3
                • 5
                -2
                Quote: NEXUS
                Triumphs and S-300V4, for example ... enough?

                No. Suppressing air defense is not his task at all.
                Quote: NEXUS
                Is there a supernatural pangolin today?

                The Lizard is the first aircraft made under the modern (well, as modern, from the Medvedka) battle format. Avax shines - the fighters will smashat.
                Quote: NEXUS
                This is how our air defense missile defense systems see him like a maize

                Firstly, you do not know what they see there. Secondly, the idea of ​​stealth is to hide not from a meter antenna, but from the AGSN.
                Quote: NEXUS
                Outdated software

                More attentively
                Quote: Octopus
                The raptor is gaining blocks with the penguin. Already the 40th in the yard.

                The raptor and penguin have the highest degree of unification.
                Quote: NEXUS
                summer time is like a good car

                Do not count other people's money.
                Quote: NEXUS
                And where is the replacement for him?

                Why would he need a replacement? With whom should he fight for air? With the existing Su-35 complete with the A-50? With imaginary Su-57 complete with A-100?
                1. NEXUS 25 February 2020 17: 12 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  Quote: Octopus
                  No. Suppressing air defense is not his task at all.

                  In the event of a non-nuclear military conflict, all fighters without exception will deal with enemy air defense systems. So it's not about tasks ...

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Firstly, you do not know what they see there.

                  Secondly ... the very concept of stealth technology was let’s say that we threw mattresses and, according to some smart military men, the United States was not capable. By the way, stealth is not invisibility but stealth. All air defense systems have different frequencies, and as a result of this, our systems easily and clearly see these pseudo-invisibles.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Secondly, the idea of ​​stealth is to hide not from a meter antenna, but from the AGSN.

                  Thirdly ... SAM missiles are designed in such a way so that there is a confident capture of any target. And our complexes are no exception.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  The raptor and penguin have the highest degree of unification.

                  What is the unification of the lizard, if it was originally developed as a fighter for air supremacy, and not as a multi-purpose platform?
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Why would he need a replacement?

                  Then that it is stupidly outdated, like a platform.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  With whom should he fight for air?

                  Think not with anyone? The Su-35, SU-30 of the latest modifications, given the arsenal of the latter, will not leave a chance for a lizard in an air battle. And this is not bravado, but the real situation. The lizard is not in all aspects gives itself the smallest EPR in relation to the enemy. And everything, taking into account the speed, will come down to battle at medium or short range, where our vehicles feel much more confident than any Western fighter, including the Raptor.
                  1. Octopus 25 February 2020 18: 41 New
                    • 3
                    • 4
                    -1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    In the event of a non-nuclear military conflict, all fighters without exception will deal with enemy air defense systems

                    In the event of a non-nuclear conflict, mass anti-aircraft missiles are suppressing anti-aircraft defense, not fighters. It’s even a little off hand for them. Oh, how many open lessons of the removal of air defense were given by the Jews, and you skip all.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    the very concept of stealth technology was let's say so we threw mattresses

                    Yes
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    all air defense systems are different frequencies

                    Quote: NEXUS
                    SAM is designed in such a way that there was a confident capture of any target. And our complexes are no exception.

                    Yes Yes. The laws of physics are separate for you.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    What is the unification of the lizard, if it was originally developed as a fighter for air supremacy

                    Such that communication, avionics, software, the integration of new weapons develop together with the raptor and penguin.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    everything, given the speed, will go down to battle at medium or short range

                    For starters, how do you know where to fly? Does the S-400 highlight? Or will the Su-30 itself find its Leopard, the last word of Soviet radar engineering?

                    And BVB yes, Yak-3 steers, there are no questions.
                    1. NEXUS 25 February 2020 23: 30 New
                      • 2
                      • 2
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      In the event of a non-nuclear conflict, mass anti-aircraft missiles are suppressing anti-aircraft defense, not fighters.

                      In order for the Kyrgyz Republic to do this, carriers need to get close enough to the shore, and drones should hang over the missile defense systems (mobile) in order to adjust target designation for the Kyrgyz Republic. Question clever- Where is all this and most importantly how will it happen?
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Such that communication, avionics, software, the integration of new weapons develop together with the raptor and penguin.

                      It does not cram into the lizard that cram into the F-35 with difficulty. The functionality is different. Besides, wise guy, how many battle-worthy dinosaurs in the ranks can you tell? Where did you see 200 Raptors there? There were only 187 of them. After the hurricanes, crashes and stupidly not using, or rather frank cannibalism, it remained in the ranks, well, if it's a hundred. Integrator, ePona mother.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      For starters, how do you know where to fly?

                      That is, ground-based radars, the same A-50 / 50U / 100, radar air defense systems, etc. didn’t you go to school? Well then, what is there to talk about with you at all? I'm not talking about radars on the fighters themselves ... otherwise you will be completely shorted.
                      1. Octopus 26 February 2020 01: 59 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Where is all this and most importantly how will it happen?

                        Not at all aware of the realities of the past 50 years, as I understand it? The enemy reveals the location of air defense systems, primarily radars, and inflicts its sneaky blow, basely using the spherical shape of the Earth. This, it seems, has already been explained to you on television a couple of times, using the example of Syria's reliably protected sky. What is important, the enemy has different machines engaged in reconnaissance and strikes. No, the KR does not have to be ship-based.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        It doesn’t cram into the pangolin that cram into the F-35 with difficulty

                        What are you trying to shove into it? We are talking about communication systems, the operating modes of APG-77/81 and the integration of new versions of the sidewinder / AMRAAM
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        how many fighting dinosaurs in the ranks can you tell?

                        187 active. The combat readiness of the Americans is usually 0,8-0,9. Made 197 (taking into account pre-production), 10 decommissioned for various reasons.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        That is ground based radars

                        Do you somewhere have a continuous radar field, except maybe Moscow airport?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        A-50 / 50U / 100

                        And if the enemy does not attack Ivanovo?
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Air defense radar

                        It was discussed above.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        I'm not talking about radar on the fighters themselves

                        Bars flashing AN / APG-77? Yes, I heard something about it.

                        PS.
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Question to the wise guy

                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Besides, wise guy

                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Integrator, ePona mother.

                        I find that the level of your greyhound does not match the level of your knowledge. Goodbye.
                2. Voyager 27 February 2020 10: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  No. Suppressing air defense is not his task at all.

                  Do not turn upside down. You asked what could destroy the F-22, and not about the tasks of the latter.
                  1. Octopus 27 February 2020 13: 10 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Quote: Voyager
                    what could destroy the F-22

                    Destroy any plane can any excavator. It's about the regular use of the machine in the complex of forces and means of the enemy air force.
                    1. Voyager 27 February 2020 15: 38 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      It's about the regular use of the machine in the complex of forces and means of the enemy air force

                      Exactly, consider the situation as a whole, and not just
                      With whom should he fight for air? With the existing Su-35 complete with the A-50?

                      Starting with exactly how many F-22s (and not 200 vacuum ones that no one will overtake with a whole armful under one conflict), how many of them are in flight condition, and where they will be placed. Will they even manage to take off in this case. What tasks can they set for them, where are they going to take dominance in the air, and certainly not under an air defense umbrella, together with electronic warfare and MiG-31. I understand that you are a knowledgeable person, but do not have a kindergarten.
        3. cesar65 24 February 2020 16: 24 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Who will develop. There are practically no MiG firms.
    4. Vol4ara 24 February 2020 10: 21 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Mig can get, and I can become a billionaire or an Olympic champion
    5. Whalebone 25 February 2020 04: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not for Izvestia to worry, but for VO. The phrases "Hypersound" already look like an adequacy test.
  2. mark1 24 February 2020 06: 00 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The question is when? At least in iron.
    1. Narak-zempo 24 February 2020 08: 59 New
      • 9
      • 4
      +5
      Quote: mark1
      The question is when? At least in iron.

      What for? We are building a digital economy, so a 3D model is enough.
  3. svp67 24 February 2020 06: 35 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Each US ICBM is capable of carrying up to a dozen warheads, how much is the MiG-41 needed to repel them?
    1. Shopping Mall 24 February 2020 11: 09 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      Each US ICBM is capable of carrying up to a dozen warheads, how much is the MiG-41 needed to repel them?


      What does the MIG-41 have to do with intercepting ICBM warheads?
      1. svp67 24 February 2020 11: 39 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: AVM
        What does the MIG-41 have to do with intercepting ICBM warheads?

        Yes, because they go to "hypersound"
        1. Shopping Mall 24 February 2020 11: 48 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: AVM
          What does the MIG-41 have to do with intercepting ICBM warheads?

          Yes, because they go to "hypersound"


          So what? The ICBM warheads have a completely different trajectory, they fly along a ballistic curve with an apogee of more than 1000 km, and in fact fall vertically down.

          Nobody has yet tried to create an interceptor for ICBM warheads in view of both its unrealizability of the idea and its absolute futility. For this, missiles are needed.

          Hypersonic means weapons, most of the flight of which takes place in the atmosphere at speeds above 5M.
          1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 12 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Quote: AVM
            So what? The ICBM warheads have a completely different trajectory, they fly along a ballistic curve with an apogee of more than 1000 km, and in fact fall vertically down.

            And our "Vanguard"? And where is the confidence that the Americans do not have their “Vanguard”?
            1. Shopping Mall 24 February 2020 12: 42 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: AVM
              So what? The ICBM warheads have a completely different trajectory, they fly along a ballistic curve with an apogee of more than 1000 km, and in fact fall vertically down.

              And our "Vanguard"? And where is the confidence that the Americans do not have their “Vanguard”?


              And “Vanguards” or their analogues on ICBMs cost 1-3 units, you can’t push them anymore, because he himself is not small. Those. in this case it will already be possible to work on them according to the concept stated in the article.
              1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 44 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: AVM
                And “Vanguards” or their analogues on ICBMs cost 1-3 units, you can’t push them anymore, because he himself is not small. Those. in this case it will already be possible to work on them according to the concept stated in the article.

                Do you consider false blocks? I am sure that they will be. Can they be distinguished from military ones?
                1. Shopping Mall 24 February 2020 12: 47 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  No, they will not be. Lungs will be eliminated instantly in the atmosphere, while heavy ones will essentially be the same warhead, complex and expensive, since they also have to plan and maneuver, otherwise there is no point in them.

                  In the case of ballistic blocks, the lungs are just inflatable targets, nothing prevents them from flying in space, but in the atmosphere they are immediately eliminated. And essentially heavy metal discs without filling, they are also inexpensive. Only places take up more.
                  1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: AVM
                    No, they will not be.

                    Well, ok, God willing, we will never see this in practice, but let us see, so we will not care
          2. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 13: 12 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Quote: AVM
            Nobody has yet tried to create an interceptor for ICBM warheads

            They tried. At least our "incredible friends" from Boeing. It hasn’t worked out yet, but the road will be overpowered
  4. Lbaralgeen 24 February 2020 06: 52 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    --- MiG-31 in the broad sense is a deeply modernized MiG-25

    as we know, this is a complete lie, which amateurs copy from one goblog to another. These are different planes for different tasks made on one glider. Also say that F16 is made on the basis of F15
  5. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 07: 35 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    MiG41 - an invention ..... with the presence of new explosive missiles and the presence of the Su57, as well as the Su30-35 (upgraded from AFAR), it is entirely possible to solve all air defense issues. The development of a separate fighter (not mass) is not realistic in the Russian Federation, where even the development of a light fighter of the 5th generation is problematic.
    1. Andrey.AN 24 February 2020 16: 34 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Yes, it is not necessary on the Su30-35 AFAR, PFAR is much better, it can also graze in the passive mode, and the radio horizon of the PFAR is farther than that of the AFAR, and in range in the line of sight is no worse.
      1. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 17: 57 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        When there is no Afar, then PFAR is certainly better .....
        1. Andrey.AN 24 February 2020 20: 20 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          In any case, it is better to allow the station to detect earlier, the AFAR cannot form a beam below the line of sight, but the SPAR beam below this line loses its intensity, but does not disappear, a mark on the horizon will be shown if something is farther. Afar may be better for you, but at low altitudes you will be a sucker with it. In any scenario, Irbis does any AFAR.
          1. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 20: 28 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            This is crap .......
            1. Andrey.AN 24 February 2020 20: 30 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Well, yes, like diffraction, crap and the wave is cut with scissors, don’t be blunt.
  6. Professor Preobrazhensky 24 February 2020 07: 55 New
    • 20
    • 9
    +11
    We will equip a promising aircraft with promising missiles, a promising radar, a promising EW system, and a promising laser.
    According to the declared characteristics, no one has any analogues to our promising aircraft.
    Of all the promising aviation complex voiced today, our industry has prepared technically for serial production, only the application of an identification mark on the tail unit of the aircraft belonging to the Russian Air Force.
    The entry of the promising Mig-41 aircraft into the troops has been postponed to the distant future.
    1. Professor Preobrazhensky 24 February 2020 08: 54 New
      • 15
      • 10
      +5
      By the way, in the near future plans will be announced for an even more promising aircraft with even more promising weapons systems based on new physical principles that are planned for scientific discovery in the future.
      From all of the above, there is complete confidence that in the near and long term, we have a great opportunity to respond to any challenges with our promising prospects for any prospect.
      1. Professor Preobrazhensky 24 February 2020 09: 29 New
        • 9
        • 9
        0
        But unfortunately, it must be recognized that not all promising weapons will appear in the future in the army.
        Some promising areas, during their development, have ceased to correspond to the prospects for the development of weapons systems in the long term. Also, some promising wounds of operating time no longer correspond to new promising trends.
        So you should not expect in the near future, the emergence of breakthrough promising projects in the army.
  7. Crystal of Truth 24 February 2020 08: 41 New
    • 3
    • 8
    -5
    Su 57 is just right, now you can do MIG 41))
  8. Narak-zempo 24 February 2020 08: 51 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Rocket, judging by the appearance bare parts, has an active homing radar head.

    Masterpiece
    1. Sklendarka 24 February 2020 22: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      If it’s possible about the “head” in more detail, well, for the future ...
  9. Hermit21 24 February 2020 09: 09 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    Since Russia does not have the financial capabilities of the United States, the answer will have to be “cheap and cheerful”

    Answer what, author? For layouts and presentations? Now we do not need to think how to answer, but to the Americans.
    Interestingly, the speed of the war block, according to Western sources, can reach 20 Machs

    Is this stupid something up to 5 even accelerates?
    1. bondrostov 24 February 2020 11: 04 New
      • 5
      • 8
      -3
      Ahead of what are we cartoons? wassat if you want to believe in our hyper sound let them show in normal quality starts and hits the target and performance characteristics
      1. Hermit21 24 February 2020 15: 18 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        And also drawings, alloy formulations, technical processes, manufacturing technology ... If you want a lot, you will get a little
        1. bondrostov 24 February 2020 18: 51 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Is there a gauge? There is. and not be afraid to show. Because it’s not a cartoon that has nothing
    2. kpd
      kpd 24 February 2020 12: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If the flight passes along a ballistic transatmospheric trajectory, then it can.
  10. Nikolaevich I 24 February 2020 09: 30 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    One thing is clear ... the aforementioned IFRC DP is just a “voiceover” of a “dream-idea”! I am sure that neither customers, nor "contractors" at present really represent what they will succeed! You can immediately say that the notorious K-77M in its "pure" form is not advisable to use! Have to "compose" the "product", at best, on the "base" of K-77M! It will be possible to “take” an active GOS with AFAR, solid-state solid-propellant rocket engine less, but preferably with a controlled “on-off” ... you can’t do without DPU! It’s worth “thinking” about a GOS that uses the “spectral” signs of a plasma shells of hypersonic ammunition ... (radio-frequency, optical ...). Shrapnel warhead "working" in 2 "modes" ...: 1. actually, "flying buckshot"; 2.. "kinetic impact" ... 3. there are still ideas ... but we will not ... "guessing on the coffee grounds"!
  11. Warrior MorePhoto 24 February 2020 10: 34 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Zaurbek
    MiG41 - an invention ..... with the presence of new explosive missiles and the presence of the Su57, as well as the Su30-35 (upgraded from AFAR), it is entirely possible to solve all air defense issues. The development of a separate fighter (not mass) is not realistic in the Russian Federation, where even the development of a light fighter of the 5th generation is problematic.


    Time will tell whether the invention is kind of like information from the general director of the corporation, and see how much it will be realized ...

    As for Su 35, 57, everything is correct, but if so:
    Mig 41 “invisible” with long-range x 172 long-range missiles, high speed and height + remember the scat project that was scher, but they say that the development has resumed on an initiative basis (and if the work is in full growth in secret?) And let's say it starts?
    But what if Scat is the "younger brother" of the still "mythical" Mig 41?

    A bunch of Su 57 + Hunter with subsonic speed, we believe that there is. An excellent concept in my opinion, further more, we will see and hear more about this kindred alliance.

    Mig 41 near space at high speed (we won’t go into exact speed, but it’s more than with all available aircraft) and + into a bunch of “mythical” Scat UAVs, also with high speed and altitude ... ???
    I see this as very promising! Promising in tactics, in the videoconferencing strategy, in the development of UAVs (and after 5-10 years, UAV development will be a serious step from what is already there)
    1. mark1 24 February 2020 11: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Fighter MoreThings
      A bunch of Su 57 + Hunter with subsonic speed, we believe that there is.

      How do you see collaboration
      Quote: Fighter MoreThings
      Hunter with subsonic speed
      and Su-57 with supersonic cruising speed? Far from harmonious pair turns out.
    2. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 13: 15 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Fighter MoreThings
      but if so:
      Mig 41 "invisible"

      why to the interceptor stealth ????
    3. bars1 24 February 2020 18: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      For Skat, supersonic speed was not announced, at least in 2007. when presented its full-size layout
    4. Bad_gr 24 February 2020 23: 55 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Fighter MoreThings
      A bunch of Su 57 + Hunter with subsonic speed, we believe that there is. Great concept in my opinion,

      In my opinion, “Hunter” is better managed with the A-50: he sees far, and the whole situation, and an extra person who will work only with “Hunter” is not a problem to place there.
  12. Shopping Mall 24 February 2020 11: 25 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The problem with intercepting hypersonic targets is the extremely short reaction time. Mig-41 here is also unlikely to give any advantage.

    For example, the United States will have hypersonic missiles with a range of 1500 km and a speed of 10M. The carrier - a promising B-21 bomber - will advance to the launch line and we are unlikely to be able to find it at such a range. After launching missiles and gaining marching altitude of 30-50 km, they may be noticed by our over-the-horizon radar SPRN radars, for simplicity let these be the same 1500 km. 10M is 3300 meters per second, i.e. 3,3 km / s, i.e. it is 455 seconds or approximately 7,5 minutes of flight. During this time, the Mig-41 must take off, lie on the course, find the target and attack it.

    Conclusion: There is no point in such a system. At least in terms of defense against hypersonic missiles.
    Patrolling is also not an option, the resource consumption of aircraft is too large, and the enemy, knowing the composition of the patrol, can exceed its ability to intercept targets (ammunition is limited).

    It is much more efficient to place anti-missiles or missiles on the ground, make them energetic start from the container, which will obviously be faster than the take-off of the aircraft. If hypersonic missiles are detected, launch in advance, with the release of missiles to the meeting point (more precisely, to the area within which the hypersonic missile can change course).

    It’s nice to supplement their radar on balloons or radar on a UAV, to increase the range of guidance missiles (issuing target designation from an external carrier) - https://topwar.ru/157292-obespechenie-raboty-zrk-po-nizkoletjaschim-celjam-bez-privlechenija -aviacii-vvs.html

    But as a means of breaking through the enemy’s air defense, destroying A2AD zones, an Mig-41 aircraft (as described) can be very interesting.

    Something like this: https://topwar.ru/161314-koncept-boevogo-samoleta-2050-goda-i-oruzhie-na-novyh-fizicheskih-principah.html
    1. Nikolaevich I 24 February 2020 13: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: AVM
      The problem with intercepting hypersonic targets is the extremely short reaction time. Mig-41 here is also unlikely to give any advantage.

      Yes .... this is the most vulnerable spot of the IFRC project! So far (!) I don’t see any way to solve this problem ... If you can somehow “wiggle” with the “cassette elements” to the launch vehicle, then what to do with the launch vehicle? What should it be so that it can be used with the desired effect to intercept "hypersonic ammunition" - "niht ferstein"! In any case, not the same as a few words of "information" describe it!
  13. surok1 24 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Making a hypersonic engine is not a problem. Make an atmospheric hypersonic engine so that the oxidizer does not carry.)) The problem is also hypersonic maneuvering.)) I can tell from which area the solution is. But the author, as it were, offers to speculate about sensitive defense technology in an open source, which, as it were, is not entirely correct.))
  14. Warrior MorePhoto 24 February 2020 12: 47 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: mark1
    Quote: Fighter MoreThings
    A bunch of Su 57 + Hunter with subsonic speed, we believe that there is.

    How do you see collaboration
    Quote: Fighter MoreThings
    Hunter with subsonic speed
    and Su-57 with supersonic cruising speed? Far from harmonious pair turns out.


    The hunter in front - smaller, less visibility, maximum intelligence information, in principle, a good combat load of 4 tons.

    I'm not saying that Su 57 and Hunter take off at the same time and gain maximum speed. The hunter also has a ground control station.

    When attacking, for example, F 35, let's say Hunter is the first to see or fix it, and the sonic speed will give more time for the pilot to get away from the strike, as one of the options.

    Metaphor - A hunter is a shield (for Su 57) and eyes (or for example, “long arm”). Its meaning as a shield is the most important life of the pilot and a lower cost in case of loss, his eyes are for example entering the coverage area of ​​the enemy's disguised air defense and opening an autopsy to transmit information to Su 57.

    Given the development of the UAV, take for example an attacking swarm, then this is as reasonable and correct as possible, there will be time both to warn and take a hit on yourself.
    There is also no information on electronic warfare at Okhotnik, but it is possible, like in Su 57, to be sewn up in the building and confuse the 20-30-40% attacking swarm, this is also agree + for the pilot on Su 57.

    If, on this principle, we take the Mig 41 + Skat, then what is bad if you go at an altitude of 30+ km at high speed and strike in the depths of defense?
    At this altitude, to date, not many air defense systems will react and will be able to bring down.
    And taking into account the fact that the Skat (according to flickering information) will be 10 tons, respectively, and its dimensions will be much smaller, hence it’s just a “bomb” and death for the adversary) not only is it very high and reachable even for serious air defense and even a small EPR . Yes, while the combat load will be about 2 tons, but here I see the effect of a "scalpel" for the depth of defense. In theory, without space reconnaissance, no one will understand the otkub flew to the command post (enemy) two Cab 500 (as an option)
  15. Warrior MorePhoto 24 February 2020 13: 42 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Quote: Fighter MoreThings
    but if so:
    Mig 41 "invisible"

    why to the interceptor stealth ????


    Perhaps so, but the aircraft is designed for 30-40 years, the principle of invisibility, it is already everywhere tanks, ships, therefore, it may not be necessary, but to do "yesterday" for the future is not comme il faut. We also assume how much the outboard and internal arms affect the speed of the aircraft, I don’t know here, I didn’t take measurements, I don’t have any concrete facts.

    Here you can continue the discussion about how radars are developing, for example, photon ... in general, this is a serious question for specialists and strategists)
  16. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 13: 53 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    in the Russian Federation, an ultra-long-range air-based missile is being designed for the Soviet MiG-31 and the promising MiG-41. The product has the unpronounceable name MFRK DP (multifunctional long-range interception missile system). It is designed to intercept "complex targets", namely, hypersonic blocks of promising American missiles.

    an air-based complex is unlikely to be effective for intercepting hypersonic missile blocks. The flight time of the blocks is quite short, but the interceptor needs to: get the control system from the detection systems, take off, pick up the train, and get to the interception point. All this will take quite some time. Moreover, without a guarantee of a successful interception, there will be no time left for a restart.

    Isn't it easier and more efficient to develop ground-based (anti-aircraft missile systems) and, in the future, space-based interception components?
  17. Operator 24 February 2020 14: 08 New
    • 5
    • 8
    -3
    Opponents of the Russian Federation were liquidated with hypersonic weapons, so paid articles began to appear on the Internet, straining to rude Russian achievements that had no foreign analogues, even at the stage of research.
    1. Big Cat 24 February 2020 21: 08 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      All of these “Russian” achievements are the work being completed on the development of the late USSR.
      1. Operator 24 February 2020 23: 15 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Do you insist that the West has been in the hypersonic ass for more than 30 years? laughing
  18. bk0010 24 February 2020 14: 14 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I don’t understand why we need an interceptor in the presence of a Su-57? The interceptor has 2 strengths: a powerful radar and high speed for timely exit to the launch area. The Su-57 should have a powerful radar and cruising supersonic. This is not 3M, of course, but for reaching the launch area it is even more useful than the “jerk” of the Mig-31. Previously, there were air defense troops of the country, the presence of a sharpened aircraft for their requirements made sense. Now only the Air Force is left, what will the assortment give?
    1. Bersaglieri 24 February 2020 14: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      We need a “special” - a country of pain, and, consequently, a patrol zone. For "quick exit to the border" - just 3-4M +
      1. voyaka uh 24 February 2020 17: 58 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The MiG-25, like there were problems when flying at 3+ MAX?
        The fuselage was hot, the engines had to be changed after such an effort.
        The concept was this: intercepted the B-52 - the task was completed. One over-jerk - one flight.
        1. Bad_gr 25 February 2020 00: 05 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The MiG-25, like there were problems when flying at 3+ MAX?
          The fuselage was hot, the engines had to be changed after such an effort.

          On the fuselage, yes, at speeds higher than permissible, "went corrugated." And the fact that the engines changed tales after that.
          1. voyaka uh 25 February 2020 11: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            About engines - this is how the traitor Belenko told the hijacked plane to the Americans.
            "Full fast and furious nozzles burn out."
            1. Bad_gr 25 February 2020 13: 08 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              "Full fast and furious nozzles burn out."

              I have not met such information.
              His propulsion system is interesting in that the air is compressed not only by the compressor (the compressor has only four compression stages), but also by the air intake. Moreover, the higher the speed, the greater part of the air is compressed precisely in the air intake. At high speeds, engine operation is more like a ram engine. At a speed, the engine thrust only increases: on two fronts, the thrust of each for 20 tons.
              1. voyaka uh 25 February 2020 13: 10 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Interestingly, I didn’t know ... good
              2. Bersaglieri 25 February 2020 16: 31 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                “Reading this late Struminsky, cries ...” :( There were no “turbo-exhaust” on the MiG-25. Conventional turbojet engines with afterburner.
                1. voyaka uh 25 February 2020 16: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  How many seconds was the maximum boost?
                  1. Bersaglieri 25 February 2020 16: 37 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    30 seconds, as I recall. But this is precisely the "emergency regime." So the workers were up to half an hour at 2.3 ... 2.5 M in the afterburner to reach the intercept line (or for the MiG-25RB for a full flight mission)
                2. Bad_gr 25 February 2020 17: 26 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Bersaglieri
                  Conventional turbojet engines with afterburner.

                  The pilot who flew at them told me about the plane. Ordinary engines with afterburner are on the MiG-31 - they are more economical.
                  I repeat, the MiG-25 engine compressor had only 4 compression stages (the Su-27 had 12 stages), and as they explained to me, the axial compressor was needed only to accelerate the aircraft, and at high speeds it only interfered.
                  In general, these are not my fantasies, but they told me about him.
                  And such a question
                  as engines with traction on afterburner 11200 kgf. can disperse a 40 ton aircraft to 3000 km per hour? And they could disperse and higher, but according to the passport is not allowed.
                  1. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 12: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    1) There are 2 of them
                    2) At an altitude of 10+ km where the air is discharged. No problem, the SR-71 engine tag is of the same order (and the mass of the aircraft is more) :)
                    1. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 13: 33 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Bersaglieri
                      At an altitude of 10+ km, where the air is discharged. No problem

                      And what about all the other planes, with a greater power-to-weight ratio, they are not accelerated to such speeds?
                      Quote: Bersaglieri
                      the SR-71 engine tag is of the same order (and the mass of the aircraft is greater) :)

                      With the SR-71 the same thing: at high speeds, the thrust is mainly generated by a direct-flow engine rather than a turbojet engine. Only with SR-71 it is implemented differently:
                      "....... In front of the nacelle there is a movable cone, which is in the extended position with Mach numbers up to 1,6. At higher Mach numbers, the cone is retracted and the ramjet engine is activated [11]. ...."

                      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg?uselang=ru
                  2. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 12: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Regarding real performance characteristics, it is better not to communicate with the pilots (they love bikes :)), but with those who designed it.
              3. Bersaglieri 25 February 2020 16: 34 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And air intakes with a "wedge" for braking the flow are classic for any aircraft with cruising supersonic sound created before the early 90s. For the air in the COP should come at a subsonic speed. RD with supersonic combustion is exotic, even now, 50 years after the creation of the MiG-25 and SR-71
        2. Bersaglieri 25 February 2020 16: 29 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So he was 3+ and did not fly. The limit on RLE-2.8M at an altitude of 15000+. To intercept B = 52, it is not needed, it was initially designed for the Valkyrie :)
  19. ochakow703 24 February 2020 14: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Near-science fiction, or what if ... laughing
  20. Bersaglieri 24 February 2020 14: 37 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    1) Change the title picture - for the "MIG-41 LFI" fantasy model has nothing to do with the topic.
    2) K-77 is not the main weapon for this topic, but only an auxiliary one. The main one is the development of the RVV-BD line (the evolution of the R-37 with a new element base and structural materials)
  21. Voltsky 24 February 2020 16: 04 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    https://topwar.ru/167617-prav-britanija-morjami-vazhnejshie-preimuschestva-bae-systems-tempest.html
    At first I thought that the same person wrote, but no :)
  22. bars1 24 February 2020 19: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the photo from the NGO Vympel - the incompletely assembled R-77 on Paralay was taken apart in detail.
    It is still unclear why everyone suddenly decided that the IFRK DP was created to deal specifically with hypersonic targets? This is primarily a complex for FAR interception that includes a stage for delivering R-77 missiles over a long distance and targets can be very diverse, but mostly, probably subsonic missiles from special aircraft (AWACS, TK)
    By the way, in the US, DARPA is starting to develop a LongShot UAV, which carries two AIM-120 missiles. LongShot plan to hang under the wing of the F-16, F / A-18. As they say the idea is in the air
    1. bars1 24 February 2020 21: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      IMHO, IFRC DP is not only and not so much for the MiG-31 and possible MiG-41 as for the less frisky fighters that cannot reach the attack line as quickly as the above-mentioned MiGs. A hypersound ... Just hypersound is now in vogue, and it is being sculpted to anything from the President to an ordinary journalist.
  23. TatarinSSSR 24 February 2020 19: 52 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    Well, all over again. It seems to me, gentlemen, that one day a certain MiG-41 will appear, it will be diligently touted as "having no analogues in the world." They’ll even build three pieces for testing. Motley and multi-colored. They will drive over Red Square at the parade and at exhibitions. They will try to shove it in advance to someone like India, China and even the Turks. And then they will smoothly say - we need a second-stage engine, and will not put it into service yet. There is also a Mig 31. We sub-shaman him and go. And in 10 years the MiG-41 will be purchased in hundreds. How to give a drink. How to spirit. If by then the engine of the third stage is welded. Well, or the fourth. How the chip will fall. The main thing we have is proud!
  24. Ryaruav 24 February 2020 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    to combine the mig-31 and stealth is a daunting task and I think that for the next 20 years it’s not feasible for us, and so everything is clogged up.
  25. Warrior MorePhoto 24 February 2020 20: 22 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: bars1
    For Skat, supersonic speed was not announced, at least in 2007. when presented its full-size layout


    Yes, this is my invention / wishlist
    I proceeded from the fact that if there is one engine from Mig 10 on Skat (41t), then he will be able to develop it.
    I also thought that having one subsonic (Hunter), sculpting a second subsonic may not really be necessary.
    And also if you take the concept of Mig 41 work at an altitude of 30+ and high speed, then the supersonicity that is optimal for him is exactly supersonic ... but again, this is just my guess ... maybe 41 will not, like there will be no Skat)
  26. shonsu 25 February 2020 00: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An ultra-long explosive missile for the SU-57 does not make sense. Because such a missile will be much heavier and larger in size and it will be difficult to place it in the internal compartment. And to launch a rocket for 300-400 km for a stealth plane is also not necessary, because it can fly up unnoticed closer. Just my thoughts out loud.
    1. voyaka uh 25 February 2020 16: 39 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The Americans once made the long-range VV Phoenix AIM-54 Phoenix for the F-14. Now adapted it for the F-15. But the attitude towards such missiles is skeptical. Practical in terms of effectiveness / cost of medium-range explosives.
      1. Nikolay3 25 February 2020 22: 57 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The Americans once made the long-range VV Phoenix AIM-54 Phoenix for the F-14. Now adapted it for the F-15. But the attitude towards such missiles is skeptical.

        The effectiveness of the American Phoenix AIM-54 Phoenix was very low, with very little chance of hitting a target. The launch range of the AIM-54 Phoenix RVV-DB was D = 184 km, and the launch range of the AIM-120 D = 180 km. Voyaka uh (Alexey), if it makes sense to revive the AIM-54 Phoenix?
        1. voyaka uh 25 February 2020 23: 33 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          This applies to any long-range explosive missile. And to the Russian one too.
          It can be shot down from such distances of 180-200 km only by a large aircraft such as AWACS,
          transporter or tanker. Real launch distances: 60 km, not more.
      2. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 12: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Who reanimated this AIM-54C? On the F-15 adapted long-range AIM-120C-5 / D (C-8) with a launch range of up to 160 km. Why do we need a heavy and clumsy “Phoenix”, if there is a “bird” more compact and maneuverable?
        1. voyaka uh 26 February 2020 12: 23 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          There was an article about the AIM-54C on the F-15. With photos even.
          But, it seems, further experiments did not go.
          1. Bersaglieri 27 February 2020 12: 16 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There was an experiment, an "echo" of the topic about the "single fighter for all" based on the "Eagle" (F-15 Navy). For a long time it was- not "fired."
          2. Bersaglieri 27 February 2020 14: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here about this topic: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forgotten-story-how-f-15-almost-joined-us-navy-91341
  27. kutuz 25 February 2020 00: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    MiG-41 can get MiG-41 is not just a “phantom”, but a real project, ”“ ”should have a very long range“ in the foreseeable future ”- this is how many 10, 20, or 30 years. They have already forgotten about Almaty, for 57 years they can’t finish it for 20 years - where is it not true? Everything consists of words - perhaps, perhaps soon, probably i.e. about nothing.
    1. shonsu 27 February 2020 15: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Do not spare our aviation industry, write the truth! The first flight of the su-57 was in January 2010. Subtract from February 2020 is 80 (eighty) years can not finish !!! )))
  28. Maks1995 25 February 2020 09: 14 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    All correctly written in the discussion.
    There is no product, there is no project, not even clear promises.
    about the situation with SU 57 and Armata forgot?

    There is a suction from empty to empty ....

    IMHO: No super-duper MIG will not pull.
    God forbid to make any development Mig 31: Mig 35 for example ... and it is unlikely.

    Mig 31 itself is not going to upgrade much ....
    1. Maks1995 25 February 2020 09: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, not 35, but Mig 39 ... for example
    2. Voyager 25 February 2020 10: 29 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      In June 2019, the director of MiG RS Ilya Tarasenko said that the appearance of the promising aircraft will be formed before the end of the year.
  29. SovietUnit 4 March 2020 19: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Let them first start the production of heavy-duty Soviet glass for the cockpit instant 31, and then they will design the instant 41, 51, and other wunderwaffles. We have a valid moment 31 because of wear and tear it is forbidden to fly above 1,5 mach ... Shame!