"The Checkmate's Answer": MiG has begun development of a new generation carrier-based fighter

The Russian Aircraft Corporation (RSK) "MiG" will create its fifth generation fighter, the development of the aircraft has already begun. Unlike the Checkmate developed by Sukhoi, the MiG aircraft will be deck-based.

According to available data, specialists of RSK MiG intend to develop not just a carrier-based fighter, but a whole complex, which, in addition to the aircraft, will also include a drone. It is planned that the fighter will be of the fifth generation, made using stealth technology, in the dimensions of the MiG-35. Unlike the Sukhoi Checkmate, the MiG fighter is twin-engine and is designed according to the "canard" scheme. Also, the creation of a version with vertical take-off and landing is not excluded, this option is being considered.

The drone, which will work in conjunction with the fighter, is being created according to the "flying wing" scheme and weighing more than 10 tons. He will be either a striker or a tanker, the issue has not yet been fully resolved. In developing drone developments on the Skat unmanned aerial vehicle will be applied.

To date, as reported RIA News with reference to a source in the defense industry complex, the work is at the stage of computer modeling. Experts of RSK promise to provide prototypes within the next few years. So far, everything is limited to large-scale models shown at the MAKS-2021 aerospace show.

Meanwhile, as stated in KRET, the promising Checkmate fighter, which was also presented within the framework of MAKS-2021, will receive the most modern complex of on-board radio-electronic equipment developed in Russia. In terms of its characteristics, the on-board complex is not inferior to that used on the F-35, and in some parameters even surpasses it.

Comments

[svp67]

Unlike the Checkmate "Sukhoi", the MiG fighter is twin-engine and is made according to the "duck" scheme.

This means that in many ways it is becoming of little interest to foreign buyers ...
And for Russia? And where are those ships from which it will have to start? "Kuznetsov" will sooner or later be written off, and for his air group of such aircraft, about three dozen are needed ... This MiG will be "platinum"

In terms of its characteristics, the on-board complex is not inferior to that used on the F-35, and in some parameters even surpasses it.

As I understand it, especially in terms of weight ... which is sad

[Kronos]

"not only the" nose "of the fighter was exposed, but a full-fledged, full-size garbage, in the external image and likeness of which one day (maybe) an airplane will be made. Well, like" Armata ".... These are not cartoons for you! - the achievement of architecture! Or landscape design? In general - in any case, the achievement of ... another gaping pinnacle of technical progress. "
From the commentary by I Strelkov.

[svp67]

Quote: Kronos

From the commentary by I Strelkov.

Sometimes it's better to keep silent ...

[venik]

Quote: Kronos

From the commentary by I Strelkov.

=======
Also for me, they found a "major expert" in the field of aircraft construction!

[Captain45]

Quote: Kronos

This is an architectural achievement! Or landscape design? In general - in any case, the achievement ... of another gaping peak of technical progress. "
From the commentary by I Strelkov.

Whose cow would moan, there is a plug in every barrel. Such a bright, outstanding mind that I simply do not know how they would live without his clever statements. The toad is strangling that it was pushed away from the trough, now it waters everything with slops. An officer, damn it, a White Guard reenactor. Only here Lieutenant Brusentsov shot himself, and this sky smokes.

[Roman Efremov]

The shooters got bored. Another unfortunate person who hated Putin so much that he lost his mind for this reason.

[knn54]

-As long as everything is limited to large-scale layouts,
Not a cartoon anymore, however

[Barberry25]

and we have a lot of buyers of aircraft carriers? this is a car purely for our future aviks, at most if successful, the Indians will buy ..

[Torins]

Design surveys still need to be carried out. But he will take and something worthwhile will turn out. And training for the engineering staff.

[Zhan]

Quote: Torins

Design surveys still need to be carried out. But he will take and something worthwhile will turn out. And training for the engineering staff.

The whole design engineering school is on that. You can't do without it. The process of conception is pleasant .. But the process of childbirth ...

[carstorm 11]

As it is a little expensive for training and maybe something worthwhile will come out))) When the Navy again has a man who will create a good concept ... Another throwing with a waste of a heap of funds into the air ...

[Torins]

Well, why, Mig has experience in creating a deck boat, let them try.

[carstorm 11]

This is a little different. They want, as I understand it, to make a clean deck. 29 if I'm not mistaken it was not. Modified an existing aircraft. In any case, this is a different price for orders.

[venik]

Quote: Torins

Design research still needs to be done.

=======
Only one thing is a little annoying: "...intend to develop not just a carrier-based fighter, but a whole complex, which, in addition to the aircraft, will also include a drone. ......He will or shock, or tanker, the issue is not fully resolved yet.
How shoud I understand this? They will spend a lot of energy, resources and money on the development of a drone without a clear understanding of WHY is it needed?

[bayard]

The MiG Design Bureau has previously expressed its readiness to create a fighter in the dimensions of the 35th generation MiG-5 on engines with a thrust of about 11 tons. each, offered by the UAE in 2017. But such an aircraft is really suitable mainly for the deck, for the VKS Su-75 as a light one is much more interesting.
The question is, for which decks is this fighter going to offer KB MiG?
If the program for building the Fleet does start with the acquisition of competencies and production capabilities in ship engines, and talks about plans to build an aircraft carrier fleet do not turn out to be empty dreams and pre-election PR, then the Fleet will need such fighters.
And they can also be offered for aircraft carriers in India, which is still purchasing MiG-29K \ KUB, but they have plans to continue building aircraft carriers and they are serious.
The thesis to make a VTOL aircraft out of such a deck is also a bluff or a journalist's fantasy. VTOL aircraft can be made on the basis of the Su-75 airframe, and without any particular difficulties - the architecture of the airframe contributes to this. From a twin-engine, and even a duck circuit - no.
Doubts about the stealth of this project and the chosen / proposed duck scheme ...
And yes, the picture shows not this imaginary "carrier-based aircraft fighter" at all, but slightly changed its nose to the fashionable angularity and position of the air intakes / engine nacelles, MiG-1.44, on the basis of which they are trying to push through the PAK DP. Why do we need such an interceptor ... why do we need a pure interceptor at all ... I can't imagine.

Quote: venik

How shoud I understand this? They will spend a lot of energy, resources and money on the development of a drone without a clear understanding of WHY is it needed?

Apparently, they want to do it in both versions, because both hypostases are necessary and important. But will there be an order for them? From the RF Ministry of Defense?
If they decide to build aircraft carriers, they will most likely be.

... The other day I heard about the "fantastic plans" of building at several shipyards at once a large series of frigate destroyers 22350M - 20 - 24 pcs. Both "Yantar" and "Severnaya Verf" are supposedly going to be connected for this. If so, then maybe it will come to the aircraft carriers.
Although it would be better to start the revival of the Fleet with Naval Aviation - MRA, PLO, AWACS, patrol and reconnaissance (RTR, communications, relay). It is the revival of Naval Aviation that can most quickly stop the monstrous imbalance in the capabilities of the Russian Navy and the countries - potential adversaries. It can be done faster and it will be more effective.

[venik]

Quote: bayard

Why do we need such an interceptor ... why do we need a pure interceptor at all ... I can't imagine.

========
Well, here I can’t agree with you! Machines of the MiG-31 type are badly needed and "already yesterday"!
-----------

Quote: bayard

Apparently, they want to do it in both versions, because both hypostases are necessary and important

=======
Here - also in agreement! If an attack drone is all clear and understandable .... Then a "tanker" weighing in 10 tons - How much fuel can such a "tanker take? Well, the maximum is 4-5 tons (in reality - 2-3 tons). This is less than the capacity of the internal tanks of the MiG-35 (5.83 tons)! maximum 2-2 tons, which can increase the combat radius vapor by about a third, and in real life even less ... And if you refuel 4 combat vehicles, then in general - And "is it worth the candle" ???

[bayard]

Quote: venik

Well, here I can’t agree with you! Machines of the MiG-31 type are badly needed and "already yesterday"!

These machines (MiG-25 and MiG-31) were created to intercept three-wing Valkyries and SR-71, today there are no such aircraft in the enemy's armament and are not expected (UAVs are not counted). The Su-35 and Su-57 will quite successfully cope with all other types of targets - they have a supersonic cruising mode, a high maximum speed, sufficient characteristics of radar and BC. Why produce a zoo of different types of aircraft? We already produce no more than 200 pieces. of each type !!! So no OEP and production starts can be recouped and justified.
No one in the world has been using clean interceptors for a very long time.
It's time to become more rational and sane.

Quote: venik

Here - also in agreement! If an attack drone is all clear and understandable .... Then a "tanker" weighing 10 tons -

What confuses you so much? This is a tanker for one fighter, and if it gives the same 3 tons of MiG-29K / KUB, then the combat radius of the latter will increase by 60% minimum. And this is a very good result.
And if such a gasp also meets a fighter returning from a mission at the turn of 300 km. ? In this case, the combat radius can be safely doubled.
Such UAVs will be quite compact when basing and in the hangar they can be safely "stacked" in two tiers - for the sake of compactness of placement.
And the strike versions of the UAV can be sent on the most risky missions autonomously or under the cover of fighters.
The only question is whether we will ever have aircraft carrier formations with targets in the distant sea and ocean zones.
If the aircraft carriers are going to build, then the development of such aircraft is worth keeping.

[Artem76]

So the Americans seem to want to revive the project, there are already outlines in the form of the SR-72 ... fighters need a more extensive network ...

[bayard]

With a Su-57 combat radius of 2000 km (and with a PTB and even more than one and a half times), what problems with the airfield network can we talk about? And his speed is supersonic cruising. And its maximum speed is high, at least 2,5M (and its limitations are most likely due to the temperature regime of the airframe heating, and not to the power of the engines), so that it will always keep pace with the interception line.

Quote: Artyom76

So the Americans seem to want to revive the project, there are already plans in the form of the SR-72.

This target is not for a fighter, but if for him, then only on a collision course. The speed of such a UAV will always be higher than the speed of an interceptor, and for such there are S-400 and S-500 - a high-altitude target, it will be visible very far away.
I don't see any other targets for him, all modern fighters have a speed of about 2M and no more. Tell me why? Because at speeds above 2200 km / h, forced cooling of the leading edges of the wing, air intakes and the canopy is necessary. The MiG-25 \ 31 had kerosene circulating in the edges, and alcohol (with distilled water) inside the windshield glass unit of the lantern.
No other way .
The whole world has since found out that the speed of its planes is higher and does not design. So as not to bother with unnecessary complexity and price - there are already completely different price tags and technical difficulties.
And such targets Su-35 and Su-57 will intercept without any problems. Moreover, they also have long-range R-37Ms.
So, if for good reason, the MiG today has nothing but deck aircraft. And they should be dealt with. And the UAV.
And with LFMI, he missed his chance.
So, now only new aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation and new aircraft carriers of India, which, according to rumors, will soon begin to build, will save it (KB).

[Artem76]

Well, all the targets now are mainly for explosive missiles, and the MiG-31 is larger than the SU-57, which means it can take on board a longer-range and high-speed missile and not a single one, if needed, than the SU-57. Each machine has its own goal, its own task, ... it seems to me that it is not worth burying the MiG-31 ahead of time, and should receive a continuation. Well, this is my subjective opinion ...

[bayard]

Quote: Artyom76

The MiG-31 is larger than the SU-57, which means it can take on board a longer-range and faster missile

Who told you that? That the MiG-31 can take more weapons (missiles) than the Su-57? Take a look at the reference book, look at the payload of the MiG-31 and Su-57.
MiG-31 - 5 kg. on eight fasteners.
Su-57 - 12 kg. in the weapons compartment and on the external sling.
Both are armed with BD R-37M VV missiles.
Moreover, the MiG-31 can carry 4 such missiles, and the Su-57 is much more.
The Su-57 radar is much more perfect than that of the MiG-31 and it is all-round.
Why all these fantasies when you can just click the mouse and get the right answer?

Quote: Artyom76

Each car has its own goal, its own task, ... it seems to me that it is not worth burying the MiG-31 ahead of time

No one is going to bury the MiG-31, on the contrary, they are removed from storage bases, overhauled and modernized, and put into operation. Including in the modification of the MiG-31K as a carrier of the "Dagger" aeroballistic missile. And they will serve until the resource is completely depleted, because they spend money on their return to the system today, and they spend 15 years on the resource.
In the past, I am an officer in the combat directorate of an air defense formation and I do not see the need for a highly specialized interceptor in the future, when we have two such fighters as the Su-35 and Su-57.
It is better to spend money and efforts to create a light front-line fighter - inexpensive and massive, because the country is huge, and the cat cried out for combat aviation (albeit on heavy fighters).
Our VKS as air needs AWACS aircraft - in sufficient quantity and quality, refuelers, and not only for long-range, but also for tactical aviation, military transport, reconnaissance and special. We need planes to revive the MRA (best of all on the Su-34M). We need PLO and patrol aircraft.
And highly specialized interceptors are NOT NEEDED.
This is my opinion, as an officer of the combat directorate of an air defense formation in the reserve.

[Yuri V.A]

Perhaps, in certain areas, new very high-altitude interceptors will be more effective than ground-based air defense systems, especially with the emergence of new tasks in the near future in the nearest space?

[bayard]

To do this, you need to be very well aware of the range of tasks ahead of them. It should be very weighty, specific and significant. If such targets are a satellite grouping of opponents ... But for such purposes it would probably be more interesting to place a super-powerful laser on a stratospheric carrier and disable them in this way - a whole pack in one flight, than to raise an expensive interceptor with an expensive rocket against each and use external (ground and space) means of guidance, try to shoot down a "bullet with a bullet" foul the orbits with debris.
A laser will make it easier, cheaper, and free of garbage. Many non-working pieces of iron will fly in space, but they will not fly to pieces.
I mean that the justification for the need for such an aircraft should be very weighty. And their required number should correspond to the amounts that will be required for the implementation of such a specific project.
If such justifications are presented and proved, then we can safely take the MiG-1.44 project as a basis, integrating the P579-300 engines with traction characteristics of 14/21 tf. and the result is a heavy long-range and very high-altitude interceptor. And the P579-300 engine brought up for this project can be used, if necessary, for its own medium-class VTOL aircraft with characteristics much better than that of the F-35V. And it will be possible to do it on the basis of the Su-75 airframe.

[Yuri V.A]

What we're talking about, there may well be tasks for a specific (namely high-altitude) machine.

[bayard]

The question is how many of these machines might be needed. If one and a half to two dozen, then the game is not worth it and it will be more convenient to use alternative means on serial media.
Justified will be a series of at least one and a half hundred copies of such unique wunderwolf.
After all, this is not an ordinary PAK FA to pile, here the technologies are unique, the alloys are heat-resistant, the loads are prohibitive ... It will be necessary to cool the airframe and the canopy, to ensure the operation of the engines at high altitudes, with the bypass of flows from the compressor to the afterburners ... these are very complex and tasks that are unique in their sophistication ... And we do not have the Soviet Union, with its Science, finances, personnel, the will of the ruling elites and the motivation of executors. Such a task may be beyond the power of modern managers.
And for what?
Two or three dozen unique high-altitude interceptors?
And the PRICE of one such monster will be beyond any rationality ... and we will not find external customers for it for sure.
Therefore - lasers for Il-76MD90A, S-400 and S-500 on the ground and Su-35 \ 57 for air interception of everything else.
It is better to gather strength and build the same AWACS aircraft in a modern look and quantity of at least 35 - 50 pieces. for all VKS and the Navy.

[Yuri V.A]

Yes, the topic of a high-altitude interceptor is costly, but promising, and if it comes with an unmanned and multipurpose option, then it will be quite numerous.

[bayard]

What are you talking about ?
What are the prospects for a heavy long-range high-altitude interceptor?
Will it be in the passenger version?
Or percussion?
High altitude bomber? They refused from this back in the 60s, and they do not plan to return it.
You can't stick stealth to such a thing - at high speeds all paint-coating will fly off like rags.
So in the quality of what?
Unmanned, why is that? High-altitude high-speed scout like SR-72?
Or is it a shock again?
If as a carrier of the "Dagger", then for this it is not necessary the same high-speed as the MiG-31, for this purpose the Su-34 is quite enough.
Is the speed slower?
Is the launch altitude lower?
Well, the maximum range of the "Dagger" with such a start will not be 2000 km. , and 1200 - 1500 km. , so what ? This is also quite enough. And if its head part is made detachable and at the same time controllable, then maybe not so much he will lose. In addition, the combat radius of the Su-34 is much larger than that of the MiG-31.
And once again about the price.
If this fontasmagoric MiG-41 comes out at a price of 200 million dollars. , do you think it will be bought in hundreds?
LFMI, normal series Su-57, AWACS aircraft, PLO and RTR aircraft, VTA aircraft and tankers - NECESSARY.
Interceptors - NO!
There are more than enough of them: MiG-31, Su-57, Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-27, MiG-29 \ 35. Much more.

[Yuri V.A]

It immediately seems that the high-altitude interceptor is unnecessary, and in the near future it will be needed. Of the listed models, the Su-57 with an interference fit corresponds to the time, the rest of the projects half a century ago, which they tried to maintain in a combat state, therefore, in the next five to ten years, new types and classes of aircraft will appear.

[Grits]

Quote: bayard

The question is, for which decks is this fighter going to offer KB MiG?

A crazy thought flashed through me - is there an agreement? We are creating a modern vertical ship for China, and the Chinese are rapidly building an aircraft carrier for us! Why not?

[bayard]

The Chinese themselves have been working on the vertical for a long time, in the 90s and 00s they took out the P79-300 engine and the rotary nozzle to it from the Russian Federation. Here are just to repeat its characteristics, and even more to build up, they are still doing poorly. When the engine appears, then soon it will be possible to wait for the Chinese VTOL aircraft.
Aircraft carriers China now build for themselves, and under the classic type of aircraft. Now it would not hurt us at all to urgently order up to 8 pieces from him. frigates 054A (hulls, engines, power engineering, general ship systems) with weapons and retrofitting at the Vladivostok Shipyard ... and a pair of UDC 071 for the Pacific Fleet. The Chinese are building quickly, but we need ships there already yesterday. Since we are now allies / fellow travelers and China is interested in our loyalty (and this is so), then let them build ships for the Pacific Fleet - we will intercept until everything works for them, they will be confident that we will not go over to the side of their enemy.
A VTOL aircraft, if done, then only on the basis of the Su-75 airframe. Perhaps the type of glider was taken with just such a sight. Look at it and compare it with the F-35V and Yak-141. To do this, you will need a suitable engine, which can be both the "Product-30" with traction characteristics of 11/18 tf, and P579-300 with traction characteristics of 14/21 tf. As well as low-resource vertical-thrust lifting motors (do not offer a fan - it is heavy and huge in size). Connect Yakovlev Design Bureau to this project and everything will turn out in the best possible way.
At its best.

And the Chinese will not build aircraft carriers for us - they themselves need it like a fire.
You will have to build it yourself.

[mark1]

will be either a striker or a tanker, the issue has not yet been fully resolved

And modifications in both versions were not considered?
The twin-engine vertical is interesting - the first one will be (lifts do not count)
The impression that a shadow is being put on the fence, but given that the design idea is somewhat ahead of established ideas, it will be necessary to look (if I live (we))

[Bez 310]

"I love our plans huge,
sweep steps fathoms.
I rejoice in the march that we go
to work and battles. "

How tired of all this ...

[bayard]

Quote: Bez 310

How tired of all this ...

The MiG Design Bureau is desperately trying to cling to at least some order, because the MiG-29 and MiG-35 are outgoing natures. Having heard the old trills about plans for an aircraft carrier fleet, we rushed with our project, which was previously proposed by the UAE ... Maybe now we will be able to jump on the bandwagon of a train leaving for the future ...
The journalist heard and croaked ... without regard to that, but will such planes be needed in the medium term?
And the authorities are always ready to hang up the carrot of fresh promises - for the cheerfulness and optimism of the draft animal.
The electorate must approach the elections with faith in an "inevitable bright future" and all as one ...
And in one fit.
For that and parades ... with a demonstration of old ships and "new plans."

[Grits]

Quote: bayard

The MiG Design Bureau is desperately trying to cling to at least some order, because the MiG-29 and MiG-35 are outgoing natures. Having heard the old trills about plans for the aircraft carrier fleet, we hurried with our project

Sukhoi with his "Chess" specifically knocked the ground out from under the feet of the MiG. However, Mig has another well-developed niche - interceptors. It would be better if they were engaged. Soon the 31st will be going to retirement.

[bayard]

What they offer as an interceptor ... it's so weird (by the way, in the title picture, that's it). It is clear that this is a rehash of the MiG-1.44 with a "new" placement of air intakes and a fashionable angular nose ...
Looking at this archaic one would like to ask - WHY?
Is the Su-57 really incapable of doing the same - intercepting a target at a great distance?
It has supersonic cruising speed, armament (R-37M) and radar ("multi-line" and all-aspect "Belka"). What ELSE is needed for a successful interception?
If you choose the Su-31 as a replacement for the MiG-57, then you will have to order an additional 150-200 aircraft. And this will have a VERY good effect on the seriality and payback of the T-50 project.
The radius of the Su-57 is 2000 km. , why not long-range interception?

Quote: Gritsa

Sukhoi with his "Chess" specifically knocked the soil out from under the feet of the MiG.

This is for sure, this topic should have been dealt with by the MiG 10 years ago.
And now - only deck ships. And no VTOL aircraft.

[carstorm 11]

Migovtsy went into gear ... Of course, they chose a niche, to put it mildly, without prospects ...

[Alex777]

Whichever niche they were given, they work in that one.
Thank God they weren't closed at all.

[bayard]

In other niches, they are not expected to have any prospects today.
But orders for deck-mounted MiG-29K \ KUB are still alive and even winning the F-18 tender.
Even if we don't build the aircraft carriers themselves, the Indians continue to build them and will continue to build them ... Otherwise, it's a complete dead end.

[Wedmak]

It will be difficult for the MIG to oppose something to Sukhoi. They never dealt with verticals. Their ramp did not take off, although it was introduced long before the Hunter. The MIG-35 will somehow not look around very well against the background of the Dry. Deck sailors ... well, if they present something like a platform, with a large margin for modernization. But this requires a deck .. and we have everything on paper for now. Interceptors are also a rather narrow niche, and there is still fog here.
As if the MiG did not die just like the KB.

[donavi49]

But this requires a deck .. and we have everything on paper for now

Well, just VTOL aircraft is now the most promising niche because there is an F-35 and that's it.

Turkey - they already have a UDC and planned to do the second earlier. True, after the cancellation of the F-35, they are now actively promoting MRSS - a new DKVD for helicopters. That is, it is possible to sell 1-2 squadrons.
China - 2 UDCs in the composition, 1 more is under construction, plan 6 + 2 (UDC 076 project with finishers and catapults under the UAV) + 2 springboard aircraft carriers. You can sell 100+. Or in general to do a joint development.
Egypt - 2 UDC is, there is still a need for ground VTOL aircraft, for a quick response in vast uninhabited areas. With Field Marshal Sisi's love for shiny and unique toys, it is possible to sell 60 pieces.
India - 2 aircraft carriers, where VTOL aircraft can complement the air group + difficult areas near China / Pakistan, where it is also nice to have flights at hand, within walking distance. Again, up to 100 cars are real.

Now they have come out on top with VTOL aircraft. Of these, only India has a chance to be a pretty concubine and get the still cherished F-35.

[Wedmak]

To buy something from us, you need to show it and put it into service. I don’t remember anything that the aviation was made purely for export and was not in the ranks of our Air Force / Aerospace Forces. UDC and we have begun to build, but they are unlikely to be designed for airplanes. One heat-resistant deck is not enough there.
Ground VTOL aircraft is well ... a controversial decision.

[AAC]

I think it's time to start doing something for export without using it in the "domestic market". Experiments at the expense of foreign investors are better than a burden on the budget.

[donavi49]

Su-30 for example. The first Su-30 appeared in the native army, when over 250 machines were already delivered abroad.
Submarines 636 of the project - the first in the Navy was already on the second dozen of the series.

If the Yak-141 had not died and had been brought, it probably would have also been initially sold in China, Thailand (they have a VTOL aircraft carrier), and Algeria.

[bayard]

It is impossible to make a VTOL aircraft on the proposed MiG glider. In any case, to do well. But it can, and without any problems, be made on the basis of the Su-75 airframe. To do this, you just need to connect the Yakovlev Design Bureau, which has been developing such an aircraft for several years, but itself is no longer capable of such feats. If the Yakovlevites take over an engine with a rotary nozzle and a lifting part (best on 2 low-resource engines than a fan again), as well as a gas-jet orientation system, if you take and bring the P579-300 engine with its thrust characteristics of 14/21 tons .with. , you can get just a wonderful VTOL aircraft. If and when the "Product-30" is obtained, it can also be used as the heart of a possible VTOL aircraft, it has lower traction characteristics, but it is also lighter and smaller in diameter.
MiG shines only a classic springboard and / or ejection carrier-based fighter. And in this case, its two engines will be more a plus than a minus. Survivability and flight safety, however.

[Grits]

I completely agree with you. The MiG urgently needs to be taken under the wing of the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Only by joint efforts, and with the Yak-141 developments, they can quickly build something worthwhile ..

[bayard]

The MiG was already late. Judging by the chosen appearance of the Su-75, the Sukhoi Design Bureau is already working closely with the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Look at the tail booms extended far beyond the engine's edge and compare the Yak-141 and Yak-201.
In this (Su-75) glider, it is enough to put a rotary nozzle on the "Product-30", two vertical thrust engines for the cockpit (light low-resource) and a gas-jet orientation system, and the VTOL aircraft is ready.
The MiG retains only classic deck boats for springboard and catapult launches. And it is here that its twin-engine scheme is much more preferable because of its greater reliability and safety - two engines, it is always redundancy and survivability, especially when flying over the sea.

[Soldatov V.]

The main thing is that the Personality should be at the head of the team. Designer from God, like Mikoyan and Gurevich, Sukhoi, Yakovlev, etc. I don't believe in collective intelligence. The fact that they did not deal with verticals may even be good. They will find something new, non-trivial, not burdened with old solutions.

[Nikolaevich I]

A drone that will work in conjunction with a fighter ... It will be either a strike or a tanker, the issue has not yet been fully resolved.
I go nuts from Russian developers! They don’t know what functionality to give the drone ... that is, they don’t know: “what the hell is it needed?”; but they clearly decided: there should be a drone! Is it because the fashion is like that now? Only with a drone can "something" be in trend? "They're no longer fighting in a single-breasted" ...? And on the "parallel" this (!) ... "check with mate"! They also promise a "drone"! And they started talking about the deck ... (questions about kosher-non-kosherness have not arisen yet ... and Fen Shui has not objected yet!) That happiness suddenly fell with the drones! Either not a single one, then immediately a bunch is promised! What will we do with it? Come on! No problem! Russia got money! Defe ... effective, that is, managers will master it! Will attach on the "bottom"! Why do we, in the American way, send one "Russian F-35" to 3 letters at once: A, B, C - and this will calm down? All the money in one project to plump? To create the best? But the best is the enemy of the good! And give us the sausage and cutlets right away! And without bread!

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

I go nuts from Russian developers! They don’t know what functionality to give the drone ... that is, they don’t know: "what the hell is it needed?"; but they clearly decided: there should be a drone! Is it because the fashion is like that now? Only with a drone can "something" be in trend? "IN

Know what they know.
Just pairing a supersonic fighter and a subsonic drone is a violation of the principles of building a combat unit from an aircraft with similar speed characteristics.
The Su-57 will have to adjust to the UAV's cruising speed (the SU-57's cruising speed is higher than NW - for this, the second stage engine is also needed).
Either you lose the performance of the entire flight, or you throw the slowest aircraft.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

They don't know what functionality to give the drone

The main thing is to create a platform. And only then, depending on needs, it will be possible to either install fuel tanks on it (tanker) or weapons (drummer). There are examples. On the basis of the drums Tu-16 M-4, Su-24 and the transport Il-76, tankers were created. The main problem is the absence of this very "deck" for the deck-boat.

[Castro Ruiz]

I think a drone - a tanker is even very useful and necessary.

[Adimius38]

all this, as they say, with a pitchfork on the water ...

[Romario_Argo]

all this, as they say, with a pitchfork on the water

not so bad
the US Navy has about 67 destroyers, 22 cruisers, 10 aircraft carriers, 19 UDC
of which a part is under repair, modernization, etc.
in the remainder: 52 destroyers, 17 cruisers, 6 aircraft carriers, 16 UDC
in real life against our fleets:
North Atlantic: 4 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 1 aircraft carrier = 7
Mediterranean Sea: 12 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 UDC = 21
Persian Gulf: 12 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 1 aircraft carrier, 4 UDC = 21
Japan: 12 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 UDC = 22
Hawaii: 10 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 1 aircraft carrier, 2 UDC = 15
Caribbean: 2 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 2 UDC = 6
It's all (!!!) - somehow everything got smeared
North Atlantic: 7 against Northern Fleet: TARK, TAVKR, RK 1164, 4 BOD, 4 SSGN pr.949, 24 Tu-22M3
Mediterranean Sea: 21 against the Black Sea Fleet: BPRK Bastion, Ball, RK 1164, Tu-22M3
Persian Gulf: 21 - here we have while no operational squadron
Japan, Hawaii: 37 against Pacific Fleet: BPRK Bal, Bastion, RK 1164, 4 BOD, 3 SSGN pr.949, 24 Tu-22M3
waiting for TARK pr. 1144, SSGN pr. 855
Caribbean: 6 - here we have while no operational squadron

[APASUS]

Does the MiG Design Bureau (RSK) have anything to develop a new aircraft for? I remember under Galustyan, the MiG could even bend

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: APASUS

I remember under Galustyan, the MiG could generally bend

Yes you sho !? Can't be! How could an Armenian not get money? And what about the powerful Armenian lobby? And the numerous relatives? Once I watched a film (escho, Soviet ...) ... In the film, an institute professor, considering the economic justification for the reconstruction of the plant, provided by an Armenian student, declares that the student "ruined" the plant and asks him what he will do? The answer of an Armenian student is simple: “I’ll call my relatives ... they’ll throw in and help!” ... By the way, this “brilliant” phrase was repeatedly sounded in this film!
PS Although ... anything can happen! Once upon a time is not necessary! Maybe it was Galustyan's "numerous relatives" and the reason that the MiG almost collapsed?

[APASUS]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: APASUS

I remember under Galustyan, the MiG could generally bend

Yes you sho !? Can't be! How could an Armenian not get money? And what about the powerful Armenian lobby? And the numerous relatives? Once I watched a film (escho, Soviet ...) ... In the film, an institute professor, considering the economic justification for the reconstruction of the plant, provided by an Armenian student, declares that the student "ruined" the plant and asks him what he will do? The answer of an Armenian student is simple: “I’ll call my relatives ... they’ll throw in and help!” ... By the way, this “brilliant” phrase was repeatedly sounded in this film!
PS Although ... anything can happen! Once upon a time is not necessary! Maybe it was Galustyan's "numerous relatives" and the reason that the MiG almost collapsed?

Galustyan was the director of Sukhoi, not MIG.

[Eug]

As far as I understand, the MiG wants to benefit ("master" the funds allocated for seemingly research) from the thoroughly and thoroughly (still in Soviet style) the MiG-90x layout worked out in the 1.4s, "pushing" it into modern needs. As for me, this is yesterday, which has nothing to do with stealth. And to make a modern "palubnik" in the dimensions of the MiG-35 (F-18A, Rafal, Typhoon) on the basis of two non-afterburning izd. 30 - why not, but why limit the scope of application in advance? It will work out - it will be "registered" everywhere ...

[Adimius38]

In fact, the MiG-1.44 could surpass the Su-57 and even more deeply improved Mig-1.46, but the project was closed at the stage of preparation for the construction of an experimental vehicle.

[Eug]

I hear about MiG-1.46 for the first time, I know about 1.42 and 1.44. And, if not a secret, where does the information about hypothetical superiority come from?

[Herman 4223]

The Miga project was supposed to combine the high speed of the mig-31 and the maneuverability of the su-27. Plus reduced radar signature. The former commander of the Russian Air Force spoke about superiority.

[Eug]

Reduced radar visibility with a VGO and ventral air intake? Does anyone believe in this?

[Herman 4223]

And in your opinion, the rear head unit gives less illumination on the radars? Haha.
Then you talk about the plane from the maximum stealth theory, according to this theory, the American Raptor was created. Instantly, the decrease in visibility was done so as not to lead to a loss of speed and maneuverability. The moment had a different concept of air combat. And maximum secrecy was not put at the forefront there.

[bayard]

Quote: Eug

based on two non-afterburner ed. 30

Well, you bent ... For such a glider (the dimension of the MiG-35), the thrust of two such monsters will be extremely redundant and will only come in handy during takeoff. They have plans to get engines in the RD-33 dimension with an afterburner thrust of 11 tons. , and count on them.

[Eug]

So the afterburner "izd. 30" thrust will be (reportedly) 11 tons, and in theory, it will be shorter than the afterburner descendant of RD-33. The diameter will be larger - don't go to the fortuneteller, but the integrated circuit will most likely make it possible to smooth it out.

[bayard]

Quote: Eug

So the afterburner "ed. 30" thrust will (reportedly) 11 tons

This is so, only the thrust in the economic mode will be such that this device will develop supersonic in the economic mode. Excessive thrust is also a problem, especially when approaching. And their diameter is even larger than that of the AL-31F.
Such a device and one "Product" will be enough with its head, although the afterburner will have to be saved. And it will be just like the MiG-35.
A conversation about such an aircraft is pointless for several reasons:
1) It is not known whether such an aircraft of the Navy is needed (the fact that the Aerospace Forces does not need it is understandable without words.
2) If necessary (which means that aircraft carriers will be built and by no means one or two), is the expensive government ready to finance this program?
3) If funding is available, then a serious question arises with the engines - hypothetical 11 tp each. on the afterburner, they are at least in the elaboration, how long will it take for the ROC and will it not drag on as with the "Product"?
4) If aircraft carriers are still there and decks are really needed, then wouldn't it be more rational to adapt the Su-75 and Su-57 for the deck (for heavy nuclear AB, if there are any, the AV medium VI will be enough for the Su-75K / KUB), and use the saved funds to create AWACS aircraft? Moreover, deck-mounted too - the Yak-44 will find application not only on decks, but also in combat formations of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
In general, everything is very shaky at the MiG KB ...

[Eug]

And I personally have special doubts about the need to develop a new engine in the size of the RD-33 (which, in your words, they want) .. If everything is really so, there will be no this aircraft ... or there will be a single-engine one.

[bayard]

Here I am about the same - the MiG flew with LFMI. It was necessary not so much to deal with the MiG-35 as a promising and single-engine one - which was what the market asked for.

Quote: Eug

I am driven by the need to develop a new engine in the RD-33 dimension

If, nevertheless, a decision is made to sculpt a MiG of a deck-boat in the dimensions of a MiG-35 with such engines, then such an engine will find itself in other products - you can tin for yourself a light supersonic training aircraft / export LFMI. You can offer such an engine to the Indians for their own single-engine design, it will be much more interesting than the engine from the F-18. It is possible for the Chinese to offer such an engine for their J-31, they just cannot compose an engine more high-torque for it than the RD-33. And they won't.
But all this can be done if there is a basic demand for a large batch of deck-mounted twin-engine aircraft.
But personally, I would refrain from this, and put all the means and forces on the creation of AWACS aircraft and a single-engine LFMI, which the family of the Aerospace Forces will have to take to the court.
And I do not see any medium-term prospects for KB MIG. Unless that's the UAV will turn out. There are also doubts about this.

[Eug]

Damn, I put it clumsily - I doubt not the necessity, but the REALITY of developing a new engine in the RD-33 dimension. That is why I am talking about the non-afterburner ed. 30.

[bayard]

In fact, there are no special (fundamental) problems in this. It is enough to use even on the same engine architecture more heat-resistant materials for turbine blades, flame rings, injectors and combustion chambers, raise the temperature on the blades and get more thrust - just in the region of 11 tf. It was on the basis of these studies that the possibility of creating such an engine was announced. But this is just in words, in practice, serious OCD is needed. They cost money and effort. This engine can be useful and in demand.
But I'm not sure that an aircraft with such an engine will be in demand today.
We have .
And more pressing needs scream for the need to focus on something else.

[Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich]

Quote: svp67

And where are the ships from which he will have to start? "Kuznetsov" will sooner or later be written off, and for his air group of such aircraft, about three dozen are needed ... This MiG will be "platinum"

It is strange when the next project of an aircraft carrier is proposed, our advanced public unanimously broadcasts: the aircraft carrier has been built, it cannot even be laid down, since we do not have 1. deck-based AWACS aircraft, 2. modern carrier-based attack aircraft, 3. carrier-based tanker aircraft, 4. escort ships.
Until these four problems are resolved, there is no point in laying an aircraft carrier ...
now, right now, here and now, the MiG has begun to solve the problem according to points 2 and, possibly 3 (the article said something about a drone, possibly in the configuration of a tanker).
God willing, MiG will create this deck. To him, in the most favorable scenario, an attack deck drone and a deck drone-tanker.
It remains to somehow make a carrier-based AWACS aircraft.
Is it bad? And we are unhappy again ???

[bayard]

Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich

Is it bad?

First you need to start building the Fleet.
And not to demonstrate their own impotence.

[Lawyer1]

“Not inferior, but even surpasses in some” - is already a hackneyed phrase, well, as long as possible.
And so, of course, our onboard complex will be inferior to that on a penguin. The main thing is that it is not essential.

[faiver]

MiG began developing a new generation carrier-based fighter

- that's how late they woke up. I would have understood such statements about fifteen years ago, the edge of ten, and so what thread will degenerate in ten years, when already about the sixth generation it will be necessary to think of the class "space-atmosphere" ...

[Termit1309]

Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich

our advanced public broadcasts with one voice

Probably because our advanced public lives for the most part not in Russia.

[Tooks]

Quote: Wedmak

As if the MiG did not die just like the KB.

I also thought about it. For how many years there is nothing new from them. Apparently there is absolutely no one to do. It is a shame to exhibit such models at the airshow.

[123456789]

To sell something unnecessary, you must first buy something unnecessary.

[Azimuth]

A normal fighter will be, for the sea there are two engines, and the mass is lower than that of the Su-57. In principle, in the future, it can be registered on land by analogy with the F-18 and others.
What the hell is not kidding, if it comes to production, somewhere it will be able to move the Su-57.

[Maxwrx]

The development of a new fighter will cost $ 3-10 billion. Nobody will allocate that kind of money. The Su-57 in development meant a deck version and I am sure it will be better than the MiG and cheaper. Dryers are built 10 times more and there are no complaints from buyers as with Migami.
After the presentation of the Su-75, the last niche for Migovtsev disappeared. The interceptors will also be replaced by the Su-57.
I managed to work a little with dry and mig workers and the latter worked so badly (from directors to ordinary personnel) that they deservedly came to their deplorable state. Unfortunately, most likely we will not see more planes from them.

[zloybond]

the development of a new layout has begun ?????

[TatarinSSSR]

Another project in the hope of a foreign customer. In Russia, there is no aircraft carrier for it, and no more than 30 will fit into Kuzya. Again, the project is in the void.