Military Review

MiG MFI - experimental fighter

56
The MiG MFI is a heavy single-seat fighter, made according to the aerodynamic “duck” scheme with a full-circle front horizontal tail assembly (PGO), mid-inclined delta wing and two-tail plumage.




In the design, carbon plastics and polymer composites are widely used, whose share in the total mass is about 30%.

Reasonable sufficiency has come to replace the comprehensive use of composites several years ago that seemed to be the most promising structural materials. In practice, it is difficult to include such parts in the power structure, organization of the joints and transmission of forces is difficult, and their extremely low maintainability during damage prevents them from operating. The broken fibers are practically not amenable to recovery under normal conditions, forcing to completely replace the aggregates and limiting their use to small-sized, integral parts. The design of the MFI made of composites made panels of the wing, PGO, covers and sash hatches.

Aluminum-lithium alloys make up 35%, steel and titanium - 30%, another 5% falls on other materials (rubber, glass, etc.).

Cruising supersonic must provide two AL-41F TRDDFs. Engines equipped with swiveling nozzles have a maximum afterburner thrust of 14000 kgf with a dry weight of 1585-1600 kg. With a normal take-off mass, they provide the aircraft with a thrust-weight ratio of about 1,3. The assigned resource of AL-41F before the first repair is equal to 1000 hours, the resource of moving parts of nozzles is 250 hours. The engines passed the full range of flight tests at the MiG-25 flying laboratory (306 board). The maximum speed of the MFI should have been M = 2,6, and the long cruising, achieved without the boost, is M = 1,4-1,6. The afterburner is considered as a short-term combat when you catch up with the enemy or provide a tactical advantage.



The aircraft is equipped with a ventral air intake, divided into two sections (each servicing its own engine). The air intakes have an upper adjustable horizontal wedge and a lower lip that is deflected, providing smooth control of the flow at the inlet. The design of the input device has side bevels and a vertical central wedge. The 1.44 equipment was provided with an in-flight refueling system.

The lower location of the air intake is also advantageous for the requirements of high maneuvering characteristics, allowing you to avoid disrupting the flow during intensive maneuvers with access to large angles of attack and turns. The aerodynamic “duck” scheme with high bearing properties is subordinated to the same. In addition, PGO performs the functions of damping when reaching the critical angles.

The wing mechanization - two-section reject socks, ailerons and two pairs of flaperons, occupying almost the entire front and rear edges, are connected to an electro-remote digital control system that controls the behavior of a statically unstable machine. Its characteristics make it possible to achieve a true symbiosis of the airframe, thrust vectoring engines and on-board equipment, at the same time simplifying the work of the pilot, increasing the sensitivity of control and protecting the machine from going to extreme and extreme modes. In total, the aircraft carries seven pairs of control surfaces, including unconventional ones, such as the rudders on the lower keels and "flippers" in the root parts of the wing.

The decrease in radar visibility, achieved, in general, by the layout of the aircraft and the radio absorbing coating of its surfaces, can be assessed by 1.44 only by specific design solutions, which reduce the EPR and screen some aggregates that are particularly noticeable in this spectrum. Coverage is not necessary for the initial flight tests, the aircraft does not carry. In addition to the overall layout with smooth contours, including an oval, flattened cross-section of the fuselage, stealth contributes to the internal placement of weapons and the shelter of engine compressors, which also give noticeable "bursts" during irradiation. The air channels leading to them are S-shaped. The gaps at the joints of ailerons, flaps, wing socks and rudders are minimal. The same subtle technology is subordinate to the installation of spaced keels on the wing with 15 ° outward.

At the same time, a number of solutions, albeit related to the individual features of 1.44, do not fit into modern ideas about ways to reduce EPR: lower keels, which play the role of corner reflectors, disregard of tested sawtooth edges of hatches and panels, angular keel, wing and fuselage joints, gargrot with the same "corners".

The movable part of the lamp when opening rises on two levers with simultaneous shifting back. Such kinematics can significantly reduce the effort required when opening (with a 10 mm glazing thickness, the lid weighs more than 150 kg) and makes it easier to drive.



Tricycle landing gear with nose wheel. Nose rack with two wheels 620x180 retracts downstream. Due to the tight layout in the area of ​​the air intake, it does not fully fit into the niche and the two doors that close it have a convex trough-shaped shape. The main racks with depreciation of various types are retracted forward. They carry low pressure 1030x320 wheels with ventilated brakes. The use of wheels of the same type as on the Su-25 and Su-27, due to the desire to simplify the design of the experimental machine.

1.44 does not carry armaments, however, bays are reserved and units for its installation are laid. It was assumed that the fighter will carry the built-in 30-mm gun with an increased effective fire distance, and its embrasure will be closed by a movable flap to reduce radar visibility and for high-speed flight requirements. In the internal compartment 1.44 was supposed to place on ejection installations most types of existing air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, and also 5-generation air combat missiles specially designed for MFIs.

Heavy missiles, bombs and outboard tanks could be suspended on three pairs of underwing holders, the nodes of which were also laid in the wing structure. However, the variants of external load were not the main ones, increasing the visibility and not allowing to perform supersonic flight.



1.44 did not carry the full range of aim-navigation equipment, limited only by the necessary piloting systems (this explains the small cone of the abnormal radar, and some radiotransparent fairings, such as keel caps, were simply made up on the first machine). At the same time, all units of the complex were tested, including at flying laboratories. The aircraft was supposed to install a 5-generation Doppler radar with a phased antenna array, which allows tracking more than 20 targets and simultaneously attacking 6, as well as sighting equipment of optical and IR channels for detecting, tracking and targeting in low visibility. The use of such equipment is considered as a priority under the terms of secrecy (radar gives the aircraft a powerful radiation).

To accommodate the rearview radar and onboard jamming station, compartments in keel beams were provided.

Much attention was paid to the automation of problem solving, especially significant in the internal deployment of weapons, when missiles hidden in the GOS compartment need external target designation from the aircraft systems up to the very moment of launch. In the interaction of the pilot and the machine, the principles of “see-beat” and “let-forget” were implemented to the maximum.



Preliminary work on the creation of the fifth generation heavy fighter for the Air Force and Air Defense, designed primarily to replace the Su-27 and, partly, MiG-31, began at the end of the 1979 year, when priorities for the future fighter were outlined . They should have been the following areas:

multifunctionality, assuming equal opportunities in actions on air and ground targets;
low visibility in all spectra (visual, radar, thermal and electromagnetic);
super-maneuverability, which involved the implementation of unconventional techniques and tactical elements of air combat, as well as expanding the range of possible flight regimes without reaching the brink of stalling and stalling;
supersonic cruising flight speeds, allowing for an energetic air combat manner, imposing initiative on the enemy and a quick response to changing tactical conditions.
Preliminary common features of the fighter, which received the temporary cipher KB "product 5.12", took shape at the beginning of 80's. The name, to preserve secrecy, was given by analogy with what was used in the working documentation on the MiG-29, with further refinement of the modification (9.12, 9.13, 9.15 and others). Thus, even with an accidental information leakage, the impression was created that this was one of the twenty-ninth variants. The general management of the topic was carried out by General Designer Rostislav Belyakov, Georgiy Sedov was appointed the chief designer (Yuri Vorotnikov replaced him at 1997).

In the meantime, there were reports of nearly unfolding American works on the project of the advanced tactical ATF fighter (Advanced Tactical Fighter). Without delay, the decision at the state level took place here as well - a closed joint decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers, adopted in 1986, stipulated the main stages, terms and responsibilities of the IFI program - a multi-purpose fighter. Leading aviation research institutes, Defense Ministry and Air Force with the participation of the Design Bureau formed the conceptual image of the new fighter, on the basis of which the Air Force formulated a clear technical task for a promising aircraft.



When designing it, it was based on the same “three C” formula, but its priorities changed somewhat:

supersonic cruising speed;
maneuverability;
stealth
The implementation of quite contradictory requirements required a large amount of research. The shift in emphasis led to significant differences in the MFIs scheme from the fighters of the previous generation that had just entered service: they had to abandon the integral layout, which significantly increased the midsection and the cruising supersonic that was contrary to the requirements, the wing lost its influx and acquired a positive transverse “V”, new control surfaces were proposed which still had to find a name. At the same time, in the IFIs, according to one of the designers, the “evolved MiG-25”, a high-speed fighter “grown up” to a qualitatively new level, was viewed. The aerodynamic concept of MFIs was worked out at TsAGI, which recommended the following solutions for their implementation:

“duck” scheme, advantageous both in terms of maneuverability and best bearing properties, with rear centering, unstable statically;
large wing area and a triangular shape with a sweep along the leading edge 40-45 °;
engine thrust vector deviation to improve take-off performance and super maneuverability;
ventral adjustable air intake, optimal on supersonic and subsonic, as well as at low speeds and high angles of attack and having less radar visibility due to "shading" from above the fuselage;
internal or conformal placement of weapons.
The advanced design of the advanced fighter was carried out by specialists from the OKB Design Bureau. A.I. Mikoyan in 1985. Its peculiarity consisted in the fact that it was carried out in two parts - by a multifunctional front-line fighter and an air defense fighter, called the MFI, and by a light front-line fighter - LFI. It was assumed a high degree of unification between the two aircraft. In 1986 A.I. Mikoyan, together with other participants in the work, successfully defended the advance design of the MFI and LFI aircraft, winning the competition from the Sukhoi Design Bureau. In the same year, a joint party and government decree was issued, in accordance with which the MMP for them. A.I. Mikoyan was entrusted with the development of IFIs in the “weight category” of the Su-27.



After passing through the mockup commission that approved the look of the IFI, the refinement and refinement of its scheme continued. The first working drawings for the “5.12 product” were already released in the 1986 year, but the original edition (by this term, adopted in the KB practice, is another option in the process of creating a machine) has undergone significant changes. In addition to attracting a mathematical apparatus and a huge amount of blowdowns in the TsAGI wind tunnels, research on the “5.12 product” on large-scale controlled flying models was launched.

Four-meter half-toned “fives” discharged from a helicopter suspension went into extreme modes, demonstrating the behavior and controllability of a future car at supercritical angles of attack and helping to master methods for getting out of dangerous conditions.

Due to the secrecy of the topic, the tests were conducted in the steppes of the NIK Air Force test site near Aktobe. The flights were confined exclusively to the “windows” between the spans of the western reconnaissance satellites, and the models themselves had a yellow-green hiding against the terrain. It was prescribed to pick them up in minutes after landing.



These tests were not going smoothly; breakdowns and analysis of incidents after “controlled falls” were common, but they were paid for by the information from telemetry films and onboard recorders, which immediately went to work. The records made it possible to judge the effectiveness of certain solutions, they were studied by test pilots who received a unique opportunity to evaluate the behavior of the future aircraft, especially in hazardous conditions. In flight models with conventional mechanical control by the 1990 year, it was possible to achieve stable behavior without a tendency to stall at angles up to 60 ° and spin characteristics, enviable, and for machines of a “stable” scheme. In itself, this was promising, as it was previously believed that a statically unstable aircraft of a similar layout, not equipped with a control system with an artificial stability preservation, was practically uncontrollable.

Based on continued research and searches, changes were made to the design. Innovations, sometimes substantial, were also introduced at the first prototype assembled at the plant at the design bureau. Work on it began in 1989, already under the code "project 1.42". By 1994, the project underwent six revisions, four of which were tested on flying models.

Originally it was planned to equip the aircraft with engines with flat nozzles, reducing radar visibility and shielding disks of turbines. However, this design, at first glance, more simple, proved to be difficult to implement because of the poor distribution of temperature fields in the "box" of the nozzle during the transition from circular to rectangular, which threatened to burn through the walls. The transition to the flat nozzles had to be postponed, but in the meantime the engines managed to control the thrust vector by deflecting the usual round adjustable nozzles, and from 1991, they were introduced into the main editorial board.

The wing of the MFI with a straight leading edge without the influx differed from that which was generally accepted on previous generation fighters. The formation of vortices flowing down the leading edges and having a positive effect on stability (Academician TsAGI Byushgens figuratively compared them to the “rails on which the plane slides without stalling at high angles”) are designed to carry out PGO beams, the location of which we had to painstakingly select from installation, thickness and elevation above the wing depends on the optimal drift flow and the descent of vortices, forming a flow around the wing. This is especially significant with the adaptive design of the wing, when the joint work of deviating socks and flaperons changes the pattern of flow, “adapting” the wing to the flight mode.



The task turned out to be difficult: the first two editions with the “clean” PGO were replaced by the next one, in which the PGO blades (the term “stabilizer” lost its meaning, since the front plumage of the MFI performs mainly other functions) received an impressive whirling tooth. In practice, this solution has already been used in the development of the MiG-23 - then a rotary cantilever was equipped with a tooth, and then a center-plane influx, which had a positive effect on maneuverability.

The corresponding transformation has undergone and placement of weapons. A variant of the internal cargo compartment in the upper part of the fuselage was being worked out, from where rockets would be thrown out by hydropneumatic pushers after the flaps were opened (a design worked out on the MiG-31, albeit with underfusual half-wall placement). Such a placement promised some advantages, facilitating the capture and launching of targets for over-and-over maneuvers. However, it would inevitably cause problems in operation - to lift rockets to four meters high, the mass of which even the lightest Р-73М exceeds 100 kg, and long-range missiles reached 300-400 kg, special cranes and platforms for each aircraft would be required - too expensive, cumbersome and completely unacceptable solution for domestic practice. As a result, the armament compartment occupied a position in the lower part of the fuselage, where the missiles could be suspended directly from the carts with the help of well-known simple means.

MFI was supposed to get a new generation radar with a phased antenna array. This design, consisting of many small modules, each of which is an independent mini emitter, has much greater speed and efficiency than a conventional radar with a rotating antenna mirror, less mechanically complex and more resistant to damage. The radar of the "tail protection" with the detection of the enemy in the rear hemisphere and target designation of missiles, including with a reverse launch, launched backwards in flight (this technique was worked out for the P-60 and P-73 missiles) was a novelty in the weapons complex.



In the meantime, when building a prototype machine, problems arose that turned out to be more significant than the inevitable difficulties of designers and technologists in the new business. By the end of 1991, the entire Soviet military industrial complex went into a violent crisis. The “Defense” has lost its former privileged status, the funds allocated have been catastrophically reduced, and many knowledgeable specialists have left the enterprises and design bureaus.

To this were added defaults and a breakdown in economic relations, an attempt to overcome which was the merger of the Mikoyan Experimental Plant at the Design Bureau (ANPK MiG) and MAPO, and with 1996, the other related enterprises, as well as Aviabank. The heterogeneous structures entangled “in one cart”, however, did not solve the problems. The financial and production orientation of the new leadership did not have the best effect on the life of the design bureau, which was not adapted to immediate returns. “Defense” in Soviet times could not serve as an example of economical spending of funds, but now new opportunities sometimes led to the disappearance of money without any return.

With regards to the MFIs, this had depressing consequences: the finances allocated for specific items “dissolved” in the bowels of the military industrial complex and neighboring structures, while the construction of the car stopped at times. Occurring around the fighter "disassembly" sometimes reached the presidential apparatus, but the work proceeded neither shaky nor roll. It happened, for example, when installing a control system for which the Nizhny Novgorod plant "Gidromash" did not agree to install steering cars without prepayment. Other systems that had to be conserved were also incomplete. Not getting along with the new leadership, test-pilot Mikhail Kvochur left the company, who was to lead the IFI.

In the end, the aircraft, although not yet equipped with part of the units, was transferred to LII at the beginning of 1994. In December, it was the first high-speed taxiing with the separation of the front rack. After this, the “stagnation era” reappeared. The plane was gathering dust in the hangar, and its display, expected from year to year, was constantly postponed under plausible excuses. The vacuum was filled with stupid information from representatives of the company and MAP, confirming the existence of a new fighter (which was unusual even with the arrival of publicity - not a word was said about the presence of Sukhovsky C-37 until its first flight).

At the air show in Le Bourget in June 1995, Deputy General Designer Anatoly Belosvet said that the company expects to show 1.42 at an exhibition in Zhukovsky. However, the demonstration was then canceled just a few hours before the opening of MAKS-95, explaining that by a ban on the military, although the newly painted plane was ready for roll-out. Only the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and members of the government allowed into the secret zone of the hangar.



The press service, compensating for the failed event, distributed the text of an interview with Rostislav Belyakov, which said that 1.42 was created in response to the American ATF program, and the design bureau “firmly adhered to meeting the characteristics of the project with the requirements of the Air Force”. As a result, the MFI was supposed to become not only equal to the American fighter, but also to "surpass it in a number of characteristics." The last statement regarding the already flying American plane then became almost ritual, repeating from year to year.

Meanwhile, the IFI was once again officially mentioned March 21 1996 of the year when the training MiG-AT was shown. The Director General of MAPO-MiG, Vladimir Kuzmin, announced that, subject to adequate funding, the new fighter could be lifted into the air "within six months." The 1.42 demonstration was also expected at MAKS-97, it was postponed from day to day, but in the end it did not take place again.

As a result, the MFI program has become increasingly behind the US ATF. Pull off and further became impossible. The success of the competing neighbors also played a role: 25 of September 1997 sukhovtsy raised their prototype front-line fighter S.37 "Berkut" into the air. Finally, after long delays, it was decided to demonstrate the IFIs, albeit flightless, in conjunction with the show on the company's 60 anniversary celebration.

The aircraft was shown on 12 on January 1999 of the year at LII, where a lot of journalists were invited, military attaches of foreign countries and a large contingent of domestic dignitaries, including members of the government, on whom the fate of 1.42 depended. Among those who arrived in Zhukovsky were Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, Air Force Commander Anatoly Kornukov, Economy Minister Andrei Shapovalyants and presidential aide Yevgeny Shaposhnikov.

Following the show, a press conference was held. Questions were answered not only by Mikhail Korzhuyev, Director General of AIPK MiG, and Chief Designer Yuri Vorotnikov, but also by representatives of the government. If the Mikoyan people expressed confidence in the success and reality of the declared characteristics, then the ministers of defense and economy behaved more restrained, evasively speaking about the financing of the tests.

In the presence of distinguished guests, the Mikoyan citizens found themselves in a difficult situation: all the advantages and characteristics of a fighter that had not yet “pierced the air” sounded as if they had been confirmed in practice, and the presentation of the first prototype itself had not stocked machine. Subsequent newspaper publications, which were completely illiterate and often bore the character of outright harassment, added fuel to the fire.

MiG MFI - experimental fighter


At the same time, the very first publication with a detailed description and photo of the “MiG 1.42” appeared a day before the official display in the American aviation weekly Aviation Week & Space Technology from 11 in January 1999.

29 February 2000 g. Plane for the first time off the ground. The test flight took place at the flight test and development base (LI and DB), located at the airfield of the Flight Research Institute. M. Gromov in the suburban town of Zhukovsky. The flight, which lasted 18 minutes (from 11: 25 to 11: 43 Moscow time), was carried out in full accordance with the task. The plane gained an altitude of about 1000 m, made two circles above the airfield at a speed of 500-600 km / h, after which it successfully completed the landing.

27 April 2000 d. 1.44 made a second 22-minute test flight. In flight, a number of aircraft and propulsion systems were tested, and, besides, unlike the first flight on a fighter, the landing gear was released and retracted.

As for the aircraft itself, the sample shown was somewhat different from the 1.42 project in its complete design. Therefore, the first flight model of the MFI was built in the performance of the “1.44 product” with a well-defined and rather narrow target — evaluating the aircraft in the air, determining the characteristics of its behavior and controllability, and also “running in” new engines.

At the moment, work on the project is stopped.
Originator:
http://army.lv
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kosmos84
    kosmos84 13 July 2013 08: 38 New
    0
    At the moment, work on the project is stopped.
    would develop + golden eagle continued
    1. Civil
      Civil 13 July 2013 12: 20 New
      +1
      here they spat and scored on the project ... oh Russia
    2. mertvoe_exo
      mertvoe_exo 13 July 2013 21: 38 New
      +2
      eh, well, the article is normal, but enough to pour salt on the wound ((tired of articles about MFIs (strong sadness overcomes at the sight of this handsome man and the understanding that everything was buried and ruined (((
  2. fzr1000
    fzr1000 13 July 2013 08: 43 New
    +8
    At the moment, work on the project is stopped.


    This phrase has long become a symbol of the time when the destruction of the military-industrial complex of our country assumed an avalanche-like character. Now there is still hope for a revival of the defense industry in Russia. Would not be late.
  3. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 13 July 2013 09: 44 New
    0
    Very beautiful plane

    Personally, if I were the designers of this aircraft, I would also try to justify the need to round off the air intakes purely from an aesthetic motive.
  4. Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 13 July 2013 10: 51 New
    +5
    The plane was good. He was stabbed to death because Sukhoi did not need a competitor. The country has lost over 10 years due to fiddling fuss. Pak FA took off only in 2010, and when it goes to the army is generally unknown.

    1. mark1
      mark1 13 July 2013 11: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Taiga Master
      The plane was good. He was stabbed to death because Sukhoi did not need a competitor. The country has lost over 10 years due to fiddling fuss. Pak FA took off only in 2010, and when it goes to the army is generally unknown.

      PAK-FA took off in 2010 largely thanks to the Indians, without their financing the program could still be in its infancy, our state was not even able to pull out one project. Poghosyan found a way to additionally finance the project, but the MiG did not, the undercover fight in this case has nothing to do with it - healthy competition
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 13 July 2013 14: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        . Poghosyan found a way to additionally finance the project, but there is no MiG, the undercover fight in this case has nothing to do with it - healthy competition


        HEALTHY COMPETITION WAS WINNING WHO WILL SUGGEST THE MORE HEALTHY BOTTLE FOR DECISION MAKERS AND WHO WILL OFFER A BIG AMOUNT OF REVERSE.
        While some (MAPO MIG) tried to maintain the infrastructure and allies necessary for the construction of the aircraft, others simply fed foreign competitors.
        About the "effective manager" Poghosyan and the bankrupt project the superjet is now only lazy does not write.
        With PAK FA, I also think that after several demonstration samples it will not work.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 13 July 2013 20: 37 New
          +2
          Sorry, but you are eating complete nonsense. While the factories producing the Su-27 family had an income and therefore survived, the MiG-29 did not find any sales. SSJ 100 at once for commercial results and covered the Tu-334, which was nafig nobody needed, because it was flawed and the An-148, which simply does not have certificates for sale in Europe, or somewhere else in the solvent market. And they write about SSJ only paid Ukrainian trolls, who need to somehow push the An-148, although on the ground in the early years, it sat more often than SSJ. For some reason they did not write about this, although all the statistics are in the profile databases.

          And it’s stupid to blame Simonov and then Pogosyan for the fact that foreign customers bought only their planes, and not MiGs, or something else. And it’s not Pogosyan’s fault that the MiG-29 in the army simply rotted, since the glider’s resource was 1200 hours in total.
          1. phantom359
            phantom359 13 July 2013 22: 37 New
            0
            Quote: Avenger711
            Sorry, but you are eating complete nonsense. While the factories producing the Su-27 family had an income and therefore survived, the MiG-29 did not find any sales. SSJ 100 at once for commercial results and covered the Tu-334, which was nafig nobody needed, because it was flawed and the An-148, which simply does not have certificates for sale in Europe, or somewhere else in the solvent market. And they write about SSJ only paid Ukrainian trolls, who need to somehow push the An-148, although on the ground in the early years, it sat more often than SSJ. For some reason they did not write about this, although all the statistics are in the profile databases.

            And it’s stupid to blame Simonov and then Pogosyan for the fact that foreign customers bought only their planes, and not MiGs, or something else. And it’s not Pogosyan’s fault that the MiG-29 in the army simply rotted, since the glider’s resource was 1200 hours in total.

            What does An148 not like? A ready-made and fully formed apparatus, and competitors will not give certificates for any reason, someone else's mouth is worse than a pistol, and given the political and economic pressure, there is nothing to be surprised. A400 is a living example. But certified.)
            1. Avenger711
              Avenger711 14 July 2013 13: 47 New
              +1
              What are the competitors? For some reason, the SSJ with certificates is in order, it can fly everywhere and is purchased by foreign airlines. In general, an international organization issues these documents, and I don’t remember the case that someone could not get certified if the technology allows. The non-serial An-225 passed, and now carries super-large loads. But the An-148 didn’t have anything to do with it, the Tu-334’s certificate generally allowed passengers to ride only at the airport. And the An-148’s parameters will be worse.

              There are no complaints about the A400, if something fails during the tests, it is now fixed.
          2. vBR
            vBR 21 July 2013 18: 58 New
            0
            “The SSJ100 immediately covered the Tu-334 according to commercial results” - this is nonsense, because the latter has never been mass-produced, and the SSJ has already shipped 40 times more. Both the first and second efforts of managers from the UAC, which, incidentally, are friends with Putin and who knows about it (but does not intervene). And most importantly, this rubbish is not our plane, in contrast to the An-148/158 produced in Ukraine and the Russian Federation
    2. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 13 July 2013 13: 00 New
      +4
      an unusual, beautiful aircraft of 4+ generation, today it is already obsolete - the T-50 is simply better, as experts say, rather than honored pensioners from our site - it has no equal ...
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 13 July 2013 15: 52 New
        -3
        How can we say what is better and what is outdated ?!
        Judging by the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea (discussed nearby), the Su27 is far from better than the MiG29.
        Better or worse can only be judged by the results of combat use.
        Judging by the second buried MiG-E8 project, we will never know.
        Well, or if PAK-FA will meet in the battle with the FA-18. Which is more likely. At least the probability of this is much higher than with the MiG1.44.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 13 July 2013 20: 39 New
          +3
          Sorry, but in this conflict, the Su-27 vs MiG-29, the score is 3-0. That is, the Su-27 tore off the MiG-29, like an Acetic warmer, and this was generally to be expected. By the way, after all, just today, an old article about this war from the Airvar was dragged here.
          1. vBR
            vBR 21 July 2013 19: 06 New
            0
            How can one say that? Based on the fact that the "world market bought" a lot of them, but few others? These are aircraft of different classes for different functions.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 13 July 2013 20: 32 New
      -1
      But experts of a different opinion, and there was an analysis of the shortcomings somewhere.
  5. Yankuz
    Yankuz 13 July 2013 11: 15 New
    0
    Unique plane! Sorry - they killed the project!
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 13 July 2013 14: 05 New
      -1
      Killed twice.
      The first back in the early 1970s ..
  6. roma-belij
    roma-belij 13 July 2013 11: 47 New
    +5
    I have been following the info on this project since the 95th, but there is still no progress. I have a feeling that our rulers decided to promote only Su, and finally finish off Mikoyanovtsev.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 13 July 2013 19: 51 New
      +4
      But the MiG 35 goes into the series so they did not kill the Migovtsy.
      1. vBR
        vBR 21 July 2013 19: 15 New
        0
        They, of course, were not shot in the basement. But the design bureau is ditched, the modernization of the Mig-29 is the remnants, and most of it was already carried out in the early 90s, except for the OB. And what kind of a series of 20 aircraft until 2018?
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 13 July 2013 20: 40 New
      -1
      Yes, the rulers are to blame, everyone went to the exhibitions, but for some reason they mostly take the Su-27. Ours came to some Ethiopians and forced to take "drying", isn’t it yourself funny?
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 14 July 2013 00: 43 New
        +2
        I'm FSU Ethiopians. MiG 35 will go into series and in service for the Russian Air Force. It is a fact.
  7. Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 13 July 2013 12: 51 New
    +3
    in many ways, this board was experimental, however, like the Su-47. But the achievements did not disappear in vain and were implemented in PAK FA
    1. MilaPhone
      MilaPhone 13 July 2013 17: 22 New
      +8
      Quote: Eugene46
      But the achievements did not disappear in vain and were implemented in PAK FA

      Yeah, and in the Chinese fighter J-20, for some reason.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 13 July 2013 20: 41 New
        0
        It’s just getting fucked how they were realized, all stealth planes look similar.
      2. phantom359
        phantom359 13 July 2013 22: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: Milafon
        Quote: Eugene46
        But the achievements did not disappear in vain and were implemented in PAK FA

        Yeah, and in the Chinese fighter J-20, for some reason.

        nothing at all. It's nice that the achievements were not in vain.
      3. Evgeniy46
        Evgeniy46 14 July 2013 01: 29 New
        0
        with the same success, it is possible to announce the implementation of developments from the Mozhaisk aircraft in the PAK FA. For there are wings and he flies
        1. polyelectric
          polyelectric 9 November 2013 01: 38 New
          0
          "The Chinese when creating their J-20 used the blueprints of Project 1.46 (deep modernization 1.44), purchased from the Sukhoi Design Bureau" -quot from Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0% 93_1.44
      4. 0255
        0255 14 July 2013 16: 22 New
        0
        The Chinese J-10 was also developed by the MiG in 1998. It looks like a MiG 1.44
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 15 July 2013 02: 06 New
          +4
          The J-10 project is based on the Israeli Lavi.
  8. tol100v
    tol100v 13 July 2013 17: 33 New
    +2
    Quote: Yankuz
    Unique plane! Sorry - they killed the project!

    They didn’t kill the project, they killed the competition between the design bureau. And this is very bad. Not for nothing that at one time (besides very difficult) the iron one pushed aircraft designers with their foreheads, so that they would produce unique PRODUCTS on the MOUNTAIN!
  9. Kir
    Kir 13 July 2013 18: 10 New
    +7
    It feels like there are a lot of fans of KB MIG on the site, but do they know how many Sukhov projects they have stolen? By the way, it could not have done without the Migovites, including, it’s such a lyric, now I won’t specify another person, it can still work in the system, so (Who is aware is better to fix it if that) when a new management arrived at the MIG Design Bureau from one of the serial plants that year 2004 -2006 so the first thing they cared about was to beat out their beloved home and everything, well, is it probably the same Hand of the Great and Terrible Poghosyan?
    The main problem is that now there is a lack of Personalities with a capital Letter !!!
    Well, the plane, about the “Golden Eagle” is the same as the number of trends, and then, as the Experimental Machine is now writing, maybe it’s the same here, But the project is still a pity !!!
    With regards to who is better than the raptor or our PAK FA, God forbid war, but only real air "fights" and not only they can reveal a more or less real picture, but to write any advertising campaign here the amers are probably unmatched !!!
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 13 July 2013 20: 43 New
      0
      And he is essentially an experimental machine with a number of conceptual flaws and no one interfered with our MO orderly to transfer the drawings and people to where the specialists were still, that is, Sukhoi, but decided that it was easier to start again.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 14 July 2013 11: 24 New
        -3
        Quote: Avenger711
        but decided it was easier to start again.
        Why again? the T-50 legs grow with the T-10, which was worked out even when creating the Su-27. The project was adapted for the new TK. Of course, the T-50 is not very similar to the T-10, but, again, not from scratch.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 14 July 2013 13: 49 New
          0
          No need to be smart, do not sit in a puddle, the T-10 is a prototype of the Su-27.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 14 July 2013 14: 10 New
            -2
            Quote: Avenger711
            No need to be smart, do not sit in a puddle, the T-10 is a prototype of the Su-27.

            A similar remark.
            Read the story of the T-50.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 14 July 2013 14: 35 New
            +2
            Quote: Avenger711
            No need to be smart, do not sit in a puddle, the T-10 is a prototype of the Su-27.

            ".... According to statements in the T-50 press, the first, starting from the 80s of the last century, a fundamentally new fighter that has real chances to join the series. As stated in a number of publications," aviation observers "consider: the aerodynamic layout of the T -50 meets all the requirements of Stealth technology and, based on this, declare it original.
            It turns out this is not entirely true. In the Sukhoi Design Bureau, according to the old-timers of this company, such a layout was considered back in those days when no one had even heard of Stealth technology in the world. It was back in 1974. Then, in the "hundredth" department (the department of general species), the so-called "axillary" layout of the Su-27, which was called T10 / 12, was worked out. True, the matter did not go beyond the drawings, but, despite this, it was she who formed the basis of the T-50. Therefore, there is no need to talk about the absolute novelty of the aerodynamic layout. She, contrary to claims, came just from the Soviet backlog, which was allegedly not used in the design of the new fighter. Everyone can be convinced of this by visiting the museum in Monino, where the first flight copy of the T-10 aircraft (Su-27 index) is exhibited, which looks similar to the T-50 much stronger than the serial Su-27 ..... "
            http://technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/voennyie_znaniyarossii_nujen_istrebitel_p
            yatogo_pokoleniya_kak_vozduh

            There is also an interview on this topic by Pogasyan (the meaning is the same).
            1. Drummer
              Drummer 14 July 2013 17: 49 New
              0
              Those. on the layout of the T-50 does not repeat the godless “Raptor”, but comes from a certain drawing rejected in 1974 at the stage of the preliminary design of T-10? Cool, you can’t say anything.
              1. Kir
                Kir 14 July 2013 18: 04 New
                +4
                To the question of who repeats whom it is difficult, the only thing that is true is that planes of the same purpose and similar “weight” class obviously cannot differ too much visually, no one has canceled aerodynamics and so on. As for the primacy of ideas, so forgive me look at what periods it takes for the staff to take off and in which industries, the space rocket Werner out Brown, etc., etc.
  10. shpuntik
    shpuntik 14 July 2013 00: 57 New
    +3
    At the moment, work on the project is stopped.

    Well, the drawings weren’t even pushed back, apparently there was no access.
    In general: "Gaidar and his team." negative
  11. Rainman_1
    Rainman_1 14 July 2013 12: 34 New
    0
    Quote: kosmos84
    At the moment, work on the project is stopped.
    would develop + golden eagle continued

    Moreover, the golden eagle is ideal for carrier-based aviation.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 14 July 2013 13: 50 New
      +1
      On this occasion, especially on CBS, it was well written by P. Bulat. The scheme is of little use for a fighter, since it is poorly suited for speeds above 1.3M.
      1. Rainman_1
        Rainman_1 14 July 2013 15: 54 New
        0
        yes I agree one minus (((
  12. Watchman
    Watchman 14 July 2013 15: 11 New
    +1
    For deck aviation, the MiG-29K is more suitable due to its more modest dimensions than the Su-33. That's where migrants need to occupy a niche.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 14 July 2013 15: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Watchman
      For deck aviation, the MiG-29K is more suitable due to its more modest dimensions than the Su-33. That's where migrants need to occupy a niche.

      Is not a fact. In terms of range and combat load, the Su-33 is much superior to the MiG, due to which the aircraft carrier has longer arms and can hit harder.
      Although, in my opinion, it is better to have mixed weapons on an aircraft carrier: light and heavy fighters, attack aircraft and your own small AWACS.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 15 July 2013 02: 09 New
        +4
        These “long arms” in flight condition remained 6 units, in addition, they were unable to adapt anti-ship missiles for the Su-33 combatant units.
        1. Drummer
          Drummer 15 July 2013 15: 45 New
          +3
          Are you talking about the untimely deceased X-41?
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 15 July 2013 15: 49 New
            +4
            Not only, our small carrier-based aircraft do not have any anti-ship missiles.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 15 July 2013 16: 19 New
              -3
              Quote: Bongo
              Not only, our small carrier-based aircraft do not have any anti-ship missiles.

              And what will change for the better if the Su-33 is replaced by the MiG-29k?
              If RCC is not for the Su-33, then all the more it is not for the 29th. But the interception of enemy aircraft will become closer to the ship (due to the shorter range of the MiG-29th), and more aircraft will need to be sent because of their lower combat load (and if the same, then with less efficiency, for the same reason).
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 15 July 2013 16: 41 New
                +4
                Controversial statement. Of course, the Su-33 has a longer range and a more powerful radar. But given the limited useful area on Kuznetsovo, the MiG looks preferable. As for the RCC, this is rather a technical issue, they could equally well be used from any aircraft. Apparently our sailors do not need them too much.
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 15 July 2013 18: 30 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo
                  and more powerful radar

                  What are you. Even Zhuk-m with SCHAR will surpass NOO1K, not to mention Zhuk-A with AFAR.
                  Quote: Bongo
                  As for the RCC, this is rather a technical issue.

                  Well, light anti-ship missiles, for example, the Kh-31AD, are promised to be delivered to the Mig-29K.
  13. 0255
    0255 14 July 2013 16: 37 New
    +3
    I would like to know about the tests of IFIs. Did he fly only 2 times in 2000? Why is it not shown on MAX? I do not want to believe that he has been idle for 13 years. Moreover, the MiG threatened in 2003-2004 to resume its tests as a flying laboratory.
    What is his condition in this photo of 2009? Where did they roll him out of the hangar?
  14. tol100v
    tol100v 14 July 2013 17: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    , on an aircraft carrier it is better to have mixed weapons: light and heavy fighters, attack aircraft and your own small AWACS.

    Probably I will repeat myself, but in every clash (depending on the scale), ALL forces and means available at the moment can and should be used. As for our aircraft carriers, God forbid that they be equipped with at least one of the following: light, heavy, etc. etc.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 14 July 2013 22: 06 New
      +1
      The MiG MFI is a heavy single-seat fighter, made according to the aerodynamic “duck” scheme with a full-circle front horizontal tail assembly (PGO), mid-inclined delta wing and two-tail plumage.

      Again the "heavy" fighter! And WHO and WHEN will be involved in the development of an “easy” MFI capable of repeating the success of the MiG-21?
  15. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 14 July 2013 20: 34 New
    +1
    Not all experiments are successful ... negative
  16. 0255
    0255 15 July 2013 21: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Corsair
    The MiG MFI is a heavy single-seat fighter, made according to the aerodynamic “duck” scheme with a full-circle front horizontal tail assembly (PGO), mid-inclined delta wing and two-tail plumage.

    Again the "heavy" fighter! And WHO and WHEN will be involved in the development of an “easy” MFI capable of repeating the success of the MiG-21?

    Sukhoi Design Bureau designs lightweight PAK FA. And some hope to see the MiG LFI, which in the 1990s remained a project. Although most likely Mig will again be out of work, the light PAK FA series will go into the series
  17. cahekmosa
    cahekmosa 18 July 2013 20: 32 New
    +1
    do not care about chatter about the setups, comparisons and pushing of any projects. Article about 1.44, I like the plane purely outwardly, I would like it to just speak at an air show. This of course will not be expensive, but a pity.
  18. sataha666
    sataha666 28 December 2013 17: 12 New
    +1
    Thank you very much for the article, I liked my detail