MiG 1.44 MFI: 5-generation fighter 2000 of the year

MiG 1.44 MFI: 5-generation fighter 2000 of the year



The fifth-generation multipurpose fighter MiG 1.44 MFI, in its characteristics, was not inferior to the American competitor F-22 “Raptor”, but lost in the undercover games

The lack of demand for the latest developments, ahead of their time, always evokes a certain feeling of regret and dissatisfaction. But it becomes extremely offensive when it is connected with the advanced domestic development of defense significance, which 15 was brought to the current full-scale sample years ago, in no way inferior to the foreign analog, but was not implemented for some unknown reason. And the result was a lag from a likely adversary and very significant material and moral costs.

In this case, we are talking about a prototype of a multifunctional front-line fighter of the 5-generation MiG 1.44 (project MFI). After two real flights at the beginning of 1999, according to other sources, the secret aircraft 2000, became an exhibit of long-term storage at the Flight Research Institute (LII). Gromov, and the promising project was closed. After years of neglect, the MFI was openly exposed for a wide view at the MAKS-2015 Moscow Aerospace Show, which aroused some interest in the MiG 1.44. What was this unique aircraft, which on 15 was years ahead of the X-NUMX-generation T-5 fighter created today?

History create


Prospective 5 generation fighters began to be created in the 70s of the last century in the USA and the USSR. We have work on such an aircraft for the Air Force and Air Defense began in the year 1979 under the program and 90 ("1990-fighter" s). In 1981, the Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI) issued recommendations on which the OKB Design Bureau began working in 1983. A.I. Mikoyan. To this end, the “Integrated Target Program” was developed, which provided for a combination of work on the aircraft, power plant, avionics and weapons in accordance with the tactical and technical requirements of the Air Force and Air Defense. In 1987 and 1991, the avant-project and the draft design with the aircraft model, respectively, under the index of the MFI, a multi-purpose front-line fighter, were protected. At its base, it was planned to develop variants of a reconnaissance aircraft, a ship-based fighter and other modifications.

According to the project, the MFI should have super-maneuverability, fly at supersonic speed without afterburner, be hardly noticeable in the radar and infrared ranges, have a different architecture of on-board radioelectronic equipment (EIR) with a high degree of integration of all its systems and have improved take-off and landing characteristics compared to the existing ones by samples.

Difficulties in creating a promising aircraft began after the inclusion of the MAPO MiG in the 1999 in the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the transfer of work on the new project to the latter. The rationale for this was the allegedly high price of MFIs and the approval of MA. Pogosyan, head of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, about the superiority of their C-37 project over the IFIs.

Despite the official cessation of work on IFIs, according to some reports, in 1999, February 29 of the same or 2000, the first prototype took off. However, Pogosyan’s lack of interest in MFIs, which already had a high level of readiness for launching in mass production, and most importantly, the struggle for state funding for “their” company and its S-37 project, with obvious failures with it, led to the closure of the MFI project. And in 2002, a government decree was issued on the creation of a promising front-line aviation complex aviation (PAK FA) T-50, which finally and simultaneously “buried” both MFI and S-37.

Thus, a really flying promising aircraft with a high probability of adopting and launching into a series that met the requirements and in some cases surpassed the American counterpart, for reasons that were incomprehensible at first glance and quite understandable for specialists, was removed "on the shelf". And this is despite the fact that in the USA, work on the 5 generation fighter F-22 Raptor (Predator) continued and in 2001, it was adopted.


Workers in the final assembly shop at the enterprise of JSC RAC MiG. Photo: Mikhail Voskresensky / RIA News
Purpose and main characteristics of the MiG 1.44


The MiG 1.44 (IFI) is a pilot prototype of a multi-purpose front-line fighter (MiG-35 if adopted). The first flight, according to various sources, made February 29 1999 or 2000. For some characteristics surpassed the American fighter F-22 Raptor. The low-visibility was achieved by a special radio-absorbing coating and a special design of the vertical tail fin keels. One flight copy was created, and four more in varying degrees of readiness were at the Sokol aircraft factory.

The main features of the 1.44 MiG: duck design, high aerodynamic quality delta wing, variable thrust vectoring engines (planned to be installed), flying at supersonic speed without afterburner, radio absorbing coating, placing all or most of the weapons inside the aircraft fuselage, extensive use of alloys and composite materials, an air refueling system, two adjustable air intakes.

The length, height and wingspan of the aircraft - 17,3 x 4,73 x 11,99 m. Crew - 1 people. The take-off mass of the empty aircraft is 23,5 (18) t. Two turbojet engines with thrust vectoring type AL-41F were supposed to provide flight at height (at the ground) at speeds up to 3180 (1500) km / h. The practical range (range, according to other data) was 4000 – 4500 km, and the practical ceiling was 20 km. Effective dispersion area (ESR) - less than 0,3 sq. m

Standard weapons - 30-mm built-in gun GSH-30. A combat load of up to 12 tons could be placed on 12 internal and external 8 points of suspension, according to other data, only inside the aircraft. To hit targets, the MiG 1.44 could use: air-guided missiles P-73 and P-77, ground-based X-29, X-31, X-41, X-55, X-61 and high-precision aerial bombs KAB-500 and ODAB- 500.

According to some information, on the basis of the MiG 1.44 at the beginning of the 1990-ies a lightweight fighter with one engine was created with the same aerodynamic configuration.

Postscript


As can be seen from the above, the closure of the MFI project has become a kind of deep “moral wound” for our aviation, which has resulted in significant financial losses and more than the 15-year lag of Russia in equipping our Air Force with a 5 fighter. According to the current commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces, Lieutenant-General Viktor Bondarev, serial deliveries of the T-50 fighter will begin in the 2016 year. To justify the situation with the creation of the Russian 5 fighter generation, the media have repeatedly reported almost deliberately delaying the development of the T-50 design bureau for the Sukhoi design bureau. This was due to the desire to take into account the shortcomings that are identified during the practical flights of the Raptor. But if we approach this more strictly, then the current situation cannot be explained otherwise than with the words “good mine in a bad game”.

In order not to drive the reader into black melancholy, it should be noted that works with the Russian 5 generation fighter of the T-50 generation are going quite fast and, most importantly, the aircraft already today shows high efficiency. And do not detract from the merits of its creators. But the lag exists, as well as those who doubt its superiority over the 1.44 MiG. At one time, the former chief of armament of the Russian army, Colonel-General Anatoly Sitnov, believed that the T-50 fighter did not have the potential that had been incorporated into the MiG version of the 5 fighter.

According to many aviation specialists, the work of both renowned design bureaus on an equal basis was a blessing and was in favor of our aviation. This practice should continue today. For healthy competition never stood in the way of progress, but, on the contrary, only stimulated it. The fact that all is not lost is indicated by the reports about the intention of the Migovans, which appeared in August 2015 of the year, to resume work on a light perspective fighter. Aviation experts believe that the basis of this work will be developments in the IFI project. If so, then I would very much like to wish them, as the sailors say, "seven feet under the keel."
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. BMW
    BMW 18 October 2015 06: 22 New
    • 49
    • 0
    +49
    I'm certainly not special in aviation, but the trend is obvious. Corporate interests in our country have become higher than the interests of the state and national security. The merger of different design bureau under the roof of the UAC all the same went to the detriment. They are money and money in Africa. Management in the trash.
    1. corporal 18 October 2015 06: 36 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      Quote: bmw
      Corporate interests in our country have become higher than the interests of the state and national security.

      You might think in other countries, vice versa no
      It’s just that their corporations “move their horn” faster, because there are many of them. And everyone is trying to snatch a piece of the state order.
      1. BMW
        BMW 18 October 2015 07: 27 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        Quote: Corporal
        You might think in other countries, vice versa

        Why blindly follow them. They have their own established traditions and approach to lobbying.
        Quote: Corporal
        It's just that their corporations move their horn faster because there are a lot of them.

        But we have one, she’s obviously not going to “move the horn” faster. If in the direction of the GOZ scabies goes, because they press, then civil aviation is in complete stagnation and decline. Superjet is not an example, but an exception. Let's see what happens with MS. Ilyushin, even in difficult times, at the very least, but itched, and now silence.
        Maybe I'm wrong, explain if not difficult.
        1. adept666 18 October 2015 10: 53 New
          • 27
          • 0
          +27
          then civil aviation is in complete stagnation and decline. Superjet is not an example, but an exception. Let's see what happens with MS. Ilyushin, even in difficult times, at the very least, but itched, and now silence. Maybe I'm wrong, explain if not difficult.

          And what to explain? The collapse of the USSR completely killed civil aviation in the Russian Federation. If the military commander of the USSR tried by all means to compete with counterparts from abroad, because she met them in a real battle (and often won), then the civilian existed in greenhouse conditions, you won’t struggle for efficiency / environmental friendliness / comfort or optimize production and technological effectiveness, but I don’t say anything about saving costs (a rotor in Ukraine, a compressor in the Russian Federation, electronics in Belarus, they put it all together in Uzbekistan), where is it really worth saving? Even what was delivered abroad and even what money (and often fraternal help) really did not take into account the cost of the product and the price was molded from a flashlight. After the collapse of the union, it turned out that civilian aircraft at once became international, duties and customs appeared (which, taking into account production costs and distances, increased the price for units), add the fact that the production of parts has become international, but the rotor is made in Ukraine and nuts to it in the Russian Federation, metal and alloy alloys in Kazakhstan, add all this and calculate the cost of production. And then the classic of the genre: we entered the market (already shared by the capitalists) with an unrealistically expensive product that is absolutely not competitive in its performance characteristics. And if the military initially competitive was able to bite part of the market, and then it was not just that, then the citizen with such a start simply had no chance. Yes, and now notice the citizen is mainly driven by military men, because they have modern technology and money ...
          1. Cap.Morgan 18 October 2015 11: 29 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            The scatter of enterprises was intended to strengthen the ranks of the working class of the outskirts. Only it turned out crookedly. They will build an aircraft factory somewhere in Georgia, and then workers are brought from Russia.
          2. BMW
            BMW 18 October 2015 15: 42 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: adept666
            then a citizen with such a start simply had no chance

            I decided to finish you off. Who interfered with a military commissar and a citizen, and not merged into one bucket? Why was Ilshin trying to develop, was strangled? Who stopped to drain specialists on the civilian there? Indeed, at the time of the creation of the KLA, there was already free money in the country, what prevented the citizen from financing? In my opinion, everything is simple. They lobbied the interests of the West, deliberately strangling the citizen. Apparently Poghosyan also had a hand in this, but he cannot be blamed for this. But the country's leadership made a big miscalculation. Knowingly or stupidly, we probably won't know this already.
            1. FID
              FID 18 October 2015 15: 54 New
              • 17
              • 0
              +17
              Quote: bmw
              Knowingly or stupidly, we probably won't know this already.

              Most likely, the truth is my personal opinion, but, I emphasize, most likely - CONSCIOUSLY. It’s worth remembering the gaydar - “we will buy ...” We bought it ...
            2. adept666 18 October 2015 19: 23 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              I decided to finish you off.
              Go ahead, I'm tenacious smile
              Who interfered with a military commissar and a citizen, and not merged into one bucket?
              Life circumstances, without this, absolutely nothing would have happened. The same dry ones already had new design tools, modern production technologies. Again, the brand is already known abroad
              Why was Ilshin trying to develop, was strangled?
              Yes, no one deliberately strangled him, they simply didn’t support him on the basis that it was practically impossible to make a rival to Boeing and Airbus on those technological capabilities, nobody would let us into the market just like that, and the above-mentioned companies pay bribes in tenders 10 times more than the cost of the whole design bureau of Ilyushin ... We decided to do it more cunningly, not to get into the market with ready-made machines, but to get into cooperation, now we are making titanium racks and other elements for the Boeing, we are taking part in the design of the new casing, with the airbus too then there is a joint (I will not say, because I don’t remember exactly) we do it. Superjet in wide cooperation made. He has a lot of foreign parts from leading manufacturers, this is a plus for potential buyers because the service is cheaper, easier (supply logistics worked out to the smallest detail) and fewer problems with certification. It is not enough to make an airplane, it is necessary to provide it with the proper level of service, branches in different parts of the world, so as not to wait for spare parts for half a year, and within a week at most two issues were resolved.
              what prevented the citizen from financing?
              Investments should be repelled with interest, and our citizen at the time of the collapse of the union would simply have absorbed them without return.
              They lobbied the interests of the West, deliberately strangling the citizen.
              Perhaps there were some destructive elements, but I do not think that everything is so gloomy, there are quite objective reasons about which I wrote above.
            3. mav1971 18 October 2015 22: 47 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: bmw
              Quote: adept666
              then a citizen with such a start simply had no chance

              I decided to finish you off. Who interfered with a military commissar and a citizen, and not merged into one bucket? Why was Ilshin trying to develop, was strangled? Who stopped to drain specialists on the civilian there? Indeed, at the time of the creation of the KLA, there was already free money in the country, what prevented the citizen from financing? In my opinion, everything is simple. They lobbied the interests of the West, deliberately strangling the citizen. Apparently Poghosyan also had a hand in this, but he cannot be blamed for this. But the country's leadership made a big miscalculation. Knowingly or stupidly, we probably won't know this already.


              And let me tell you.
              we have one such very unpleasant billionaire.
              Deripaska is called.
              He bought an aluminum factory. not weak.
              And he wanted to turn this aluminum into airplanes.
              And he bought the Samara Aviation Plant.
              Rather, the remains of it.
              I really wanted to restore.
              He invested money and was ready to really completely equip the plant.
              Honestly.
              But could not.
              Do you know why?
              And I will answer.
              No workers were found.
              Simply, no one wanted to work in a factory at the beginning of the 2000's in Samara.
              That's it.
              I know the situation from the inside.

              For 90-th years - all the specialists "ended".
              Create new ones - 15 years at least, and then subject to salaries of 1000 dollars (50-60 thousand rubles in modern realities) for salaries in any working specialty + bonuses. For only then "heel" will cease to be an abusive word and people will go to study there.
              1. Alexy 19 October 2015 02: 14 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I don’t know why Deripaska is unpleasant to you. Probably the billionaire. However, he had good ideas and undertakings. Unfortunately, all his undertakings were ruined. It’s hard to overcome a bureaucratic machine. It has been repeatedly said that it is necessary to create conditions for business, and you will not go far on bare enthusiasm. That money is flowing offshore abroad. And our so-called oligarchs are a consequence, and not the reason for the mess that exists to this day in public administration. We need deep reforms of the entire system, otherwise we will stagnate and not what oil prices will not help.
                1. voffchik7691 19 October 2015 23: 20 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Well, crystal clear, with high thoughts. It is a pity that the bureaucrats still prevent him from doing good deeds!
                  And here we have another "saint" - Prokhorov. And what great ideas he had!
                  About the "Yo" mobile I am silent. And here's another: for example, a 60-hour work week !!!
              2. voffchik7691 19 October 2015 23: 14 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                "I really wanted to restore.
                He invested money and was ready to really completely equip the plant.
                Honestly."

                I don’t know how in Samara, but in Yaroslavl this “honest” billionaire owns the Motor Plant, a plant for fuel and diesel equipment. Over the past 7 years, 50% of the staff was reduced on the motor, despite the fact that they wanted to work at the plant.
                The fuel equipment plant was demolished and elite high-rise buildings are being built in its place.
                In 2008, the state gave him $ 4 billion to pay off debts. With the condition - do not cut staff. He paid off his debts and began a reduction after a couple of months. The state did not ask him to return the money.
              3. samara-58 23 October 2015 16: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Do not fool around ... You have to be in the subject (about "Aviakor")!
        2. Vadivak 18 October 2015 12: 22 New
          • 16
          • 0
          +16
          Quote: author
          In order not to drive the reader into black melancholy, it should be noted that work with the Russian fifth-generation fighter T-5 is fast enough and, most importantly, the plane already today shows high efficiency. And one should not belittle the merits of its creators. But the backlog exists, like those who doubt its superiority over MiG 50.


          There is an opinion that the J-20 is the one that is a mighty dragon, it’s the same that was passed on to the IFI brothers by the well-known photo of Yang Wei (his “dad”), one typical Chinese face in the background spoils the picture
          1. Boa kaa 18 October 2015 14: 31 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: Vadivak
            There is an opinion that the J-20 is the one that is a mighty dragon, it's still the same that was passed to the IFI brothers

            So they write about it almost openly. The hongfuz only problems with dvigl still not solved to this day - "a resource not in the red army"! If memory serves - only 1000 hours.
            1. dumkopff 18 October 2015 14: 46 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Kalash is also similar to the StG-44. Outwardly, a little. So what? Kalashnikov licked everything from the Germans?
              1. AUL
                AUL 18 October 2015 19: 20 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                The first flight, according to various sources, made on February 29, 1999 or 2000.
                He smiled ... But what, in 1999, the calendar was February 29th?
            2. avt
              avt 18 October 2015 20: 14 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Vadivak
              There is an opinion that the J-20 is the one that is a mighty dragon, it's still the same that was passed to the IFI brothers

              Quote: BoA KAA
              So they write about it almost openly.

              Who? What kind of hangover is that? Just because PGO, well, like ,, wings in front " wassat Look and find the Israeli "Lavi", in general there was no MFI in the project. Just that the air intake is not from the F-16go, but the bloated half from the MiG-23
          2. aleks 62 next 19 October 2015 10: 01 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            ..... There is an opinion that the J-20 is the one that the mighty dragon is, it’s still the same passed on to the IFI brothers ....

            .... External resemblance does not mean anything yet ...... lol
      2. Pilat2009 18 October 2015 20: 07 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Corporal
        You might think in other countries, vice versa

        In Other countries, two aircraft do not simultaneously.
        In the USA, for example, two companies fought for the right to make a 5th generation fighter, both presented their prototypes and one was chosen.
      3. Akuzenka 18 October 2015 22: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Let them at least eat each other. We should have the mind as it was. Somewhat really competing among themselves on KB TECHNIQUE, and not a squabble for "loot".
        1. Pilat2009 19 October 2015 17: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: AKuzenka
          We should have the mind, as it was

          According to the mind, it should be the best. R&D also costs money, as does the production of various engines and components. If the MIG were a private office and carried out development at its own expense, for God's sake, it would be unprofitable to develop two aircraft with unprincipled characteristics. Yes aggregates excess hemorrhage
        2. avia1991 20 October 2015 01: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: AKuzenka
          We should have the mind as it was. Somewhat really competing among themselves on KB TECHNIQUE, and not a squabble for "loot".

          This is WHEN it was with us ??? Under King Pea? Dear, do you really seriously think that under the USSR there was no "squabble for loot" ??! laughing
    2. GSH-18 19 October 2015 10: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      MiG 1.44 MFI: 5-generation fighter 2000 of the year

      There was a whole broadcast about him. I did not go through the performance characteristics and the impossibility of further modernization, and a bunch of other reasons. Accordingly, the series did not go.
    3. GSH-18 19 October 2015 10: 11 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      The fifth-generation multifunction fighter MiG 1.44 MFI was not inferior in its characteristics to the American competitor F-22 Raptor

      What?? belay Author, did you smoke something there? fool
      You don’t even have to be a major specialist here. In one case, the old philosophy and production technology of the 80s, and in the other, a really new approach. The F-22 is the first fifth-generation aircraft in the world.
  2. adept666 18 October 2015 06: 49 New
    • 70
    • 0
    +70
    Lord, how tired of these tears over the IFI ... Already a finished plane ... what was there besides the glider? - Nothing! Just a glider built on the MiG-29 technologies of the latest modification at that time. It is ridiculous to read about the "high level of readiness of MFIs, which could already be launched into mass production." AFAR radar - no, there was no production of modern electronic filling at that time, there were no developed engines, there were no nozzles with OVT (for the AL-41 dope machine), there was no production (especially of serial!) RPM of the required level of strength and characteristics. There was no other related equipment such as an oxygen generator. It is not entirely clear if he has, in principle, an inside fuselage arrangement of the ammunition with such an arrangement of engines and adjustable air intakes. So it turns out that the MiG-31 was made super-maneuverable, and not a 5th generation fighter. As for Pogosyan, they say that he was the villain who killed a super plane because of his ugly duckling with CBS. At the same time, few people mention that the S-37 was built with the wide use of composites, that for the production of its airframe, a special production of integral large-knot parts of the fuselage of complex shapes was established and it was this reserve that allowed us to work on the PAKFA. Poghosyan did the main thing - he created the TECHNOLOGY of MANUFACTURE of the necessary components for the 5th generation fighter, and now he creates a board based on these technologies! And on the basis of technologies for creating 4th-generation machines (which was demonstrated in the IFIs), the fifth-generation board could not be built, however much it would be desirable.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2015 09: 37 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: adept666
      It is not entirely clear if he has, in principle, an inside fuselage arrangement of the ammunition with such an arrangement of engines and adjustable air intakes.

      But where can it be placed there? 99% - no. And if you look at the "face", we understand that stealth is not there either.
      1. adept666 18 October 2015 10: 25 New
        • -4
        • 0
        -4
        But where can it be placed there? 99% - no. And if you look at the "face", we understand that stealth is not there either.

        Below I wrote about this ...
        In fact, the fuselage placement, even with such a scheme, is possible between the engines and the first section of the air intakes (then they go around the top), the question remains in volume)))

        и
        Now is the time of silent killers, and there are serious problems with the EPR on this board (including because of PGO).
        1. GSH-18 19 October 2015 15: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: adept666
          Now is the time of silent killers, and there are serious problems with the EPR on this board (including because of PGO).

          That's right. This device obviously does not pull on the 5th generation.
          Yes, and all the bombs on the outside have to carry.
      2. dyksi
        dyksi 18 October 2015 12: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In general, you look very narrowly at the fighter. For example, the inconspicuous "Raptor" in the sky of Syria was accompanied by a couple of dozen fourth-generation fighters, the EPR of which is equal to the whole "city" in the air. The 1.44 fighter could carry the RB-DB (T-50 no, they just don't climb into the hatch). The T-50 has no afterburning supersound, problems with strength and thrust-weight ratio, and you call this the fifth generation? Ultimately, take the most important thing, cost-effectiveness, the cost of the T-50 will soon catch up with the cost of the Raptor, and this despite the fact that, unlike the Raptor, it has not confirmed practically any of its characteristics, what’s on our website laid out, this is not the performance characteristics of a real fighter, but the military's demand for a promising fighter. In general, you should look at the car as an ea combat unit, and not as something amorphous and PR. In fact, the MFI surpasses the T-50 both in terms of thrust-weight ratio (AL-41 thrust, unlike the T-50, is enough for it) and in armament. I’ll also tell you that there is no need to look for the full fifth generation in the IFI, the fighter must reach speeds of up to 3200 km. per hour, with such speeds, materials widely used in the fifth generation cannot be used on it; he has a different ideology. Before you write anything, you should at least familiarize yourself with the material. In general, the fourth generation at the moment, is an order of magnitude more effective than the fifth, and as for the EPR, it’s on the same “Rafal” drum, it brings down the “Raptor” and is recognized as one of the best fighters in the world and surpasses both Western and our fighters in its performance characteristics and in combat radius and in armament, and indeed as with a fighter, few can compare with it. Much is written about the fifth generation, it simply does not exist in nature and about the EPR, too, only the Lord God is invisible, everything else is very visible and shot accordingly. Just so that there is no speculation on this topic, it is necessary to conduct tenders so that the machines actually show that they are the best, and not in the songs of Mr. Rogozin. At our place, the Commander-in-Chief first writes that the T-50 does not show what was expected of him, after a couple of weeks, he already writes that the car is super, confirmed all the characteristics and it needs to be put on the conveyor urgently, although even such an amateur as I know, that the engines of the second stage can’t even be seen on the horizon, and therefore the car has big problems with thrust-to-weight ratio (with afterburner supersonic sound too), with strength characteristics, they are solved, but the car becomes even heavier, and there are not so little problems with excess weight, problems with armaments are also not small, and if the RVV DB does not crawl into his belly, then the question will arise about his need for the Air Force. Mikoyan simply had colossal experience in creating fighter jets, and even the Sukhovtsy borrowed the same ideology of aerial combat from the MiG Design Bureau, and if you look at the fighter planes, you will also be surprised. comrade, using his official position, at one time he simply took them all (I’m talking about Pogosyan), he did the same in civil aviation, took all the achievements of the Tupolev and Ilyushin design bureaus, and the flagships themselves were destroyed. I hope that all these frauds will be investigated and these peppers will get what they deserve, although Serdyukov and his harem were smeared at the very top, the same thing can happen here, they will get the star of the hero and retire, and they’ve chopped off the dough, enough for a thousand years them.
        1. adept666 18 October 2015 13: 19 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          look very narrowly
          And how else to look at a highly specialized car? laughing
          "Raptor" was accompanied
          If there is an air battle, they are cheap bait, he is a hunter.
          could carry RVV DB
          Why does he need rockets that fly 300 km in the hatch? This is an extremely long-range battle, and then for large goals like AWACS, in this case, you can take rockets under the wing.
          did not confirm
          Did Poghosyan himself tell you a secret?
          T-50 doesn't
          Yes, yes, the crafts of the Migovites 15 years ago are a cut above him and without exception confirmed good
          In fact, the IFI is superior to the T-50 in terms of thrust ratio.
          They have different AL-41s.
          the fighter must reach speeds of up to 3200 km. in hour
          And what is not 100500? laughing
          his ideology is different.
          The fact of the matter is that the ideology of IFIs is from about the 80s, which you yourself understand is not comme il faut.
          In general, the fourth generation at the moment, an order of magnitude more effective than the fifth
          Duc fifth almost no one and no, but the United States, how do you rate it? By eye? laughing
          "Rafal" it is on the drum
          Where and when did he bring it down? What nonsense are you talking about? If you are talking about some exercises, then firstly the French said that they had an advantage in maneuverable combat, and in the distant raptor I ate them, which is natural for a light side.
          and about the EPR too ... everything else is very visible and, accordingly, shot
          Those. it makes no difference that you have 0,5 sq. m., what is 15? It wouldn’t hurt you to pull up radio physics ...
          the question will be about his need for the Air Force
          Well, what a horror. Who are you going to shoot down with your RVV database? When even launching the RVV-SD to its maximum range is a lottery. laughing You should write fiction.
          Mikoyan just has tremendous experience in creating fighter jets
          However, the Su-27 (and derivatives) bought and are buying more (even before joining the UAC)
          just one friend
          from the bastard, what an arrogant, captured all of Middle-earth laughing
          1. avia1991 18 October 2015 20: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: adept666
            In fact, the MFI surpasses the T-50 in terms of thrust-weight ratio. They have different AL-41s.

            Interesting: Are you an adherent of what teaching? The one whose number you use in your nickname? wassat
            After reading your objections, I come to only one conclusion: you are engaged in verbiage, and narcissism, so-and-so, sir hi They set themselves the task not to find out the Truth, but "to cut up the insolent who dared to object, to the smithereens!" And this, you see, the level of "street showdowns" such as "give a smoke."
            Mikoyan just has tremendous experience in creating fighter jets

            It is a fact. You can try to prove the opposite - but then you will have to go against the Truth.
            his ideology is different.

            Quote: adept666
            The fact of the matter is that the ideology of IFIs is from about the 80s, which you yourself understand is not comme il faut.

            Firstly, the "ideology" was laid down in the military requirements presented, these are not "taken from the ceiling" characteristics.
            Secondly, if you nevertheless READ the article carefully, it was said there:
            We began work on such an aircraft for the Air Force and Air Defense in 1979 under the I-90 program (“fighter of the 1990s”). In 1981, the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI) issued recommendations on which in 1983 the Design Bureau named after A.I. Mikoyan.
            which means that the "ideology" of fifth-generation fighters is indeed "out of the 5s." And what about the Americans from other years? And note - this is about Mikoyan Design Bureau, not Sukhoi! Whose activity on PAK FA is manifested at the beginning of “zero”, when
            Difficulties in creating a promising aircraft began after the inclusion in 1999 of MAPO MiG as part of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the transfer to the latter of work on a new project.
            Let us leave this to Poghosyan’s conscience - everyone survived as best he could, and Poghosyan himself thought not only about himself, but also about the team for which he was responsible. "Market economy", ... mother .. But that’s why your
            Quote: adept666
            from the bastard, what an arrogant, captured all of Middle-earth

            here is completely inappropriate.
            Because of the undercover games, not one promising aircraft has sunk into oblivion. You can recall, at least, the "strategist" M-50 KB Myasishchev. Tupolev, enjoined in power, pressed "all levers", and his brainchild Tu-22 went to the Air Force. From which the pilots spat for many years, until the M2 modification appeared, which left fewer widows in the bomber regiments.
            I think Ivan (dyksi) I wanted to say that you can’t be so irresponsible about serious projects - especially in the development of weapons. And if we have a market, then arrange the competition of READY SAMPLES! And not concepts that exist only on paper. Maybe we can only benefit from this? hi
            1. adept666 18 October 2015 21: 40 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Are you an adherent of what teaching?
              Automated systems and software and computer systems, and about the number: not the one wears the seal of the beast who has it on his forehead, but the one who has it in his heart and soul (if you studied the Bible you will understand what I mean).
              You are engaged in verbiage, and narcissism
              I only own those weapons that the gods gave me a gift - logic, programmer I smile
              They set themselves the task of not finding out the Truth
              What other truth do you need? Just visually compare the two products, these are:
              http://avia.pro/sites/default/files/pictures/katastrofi2/291213_mig_1-44b.jpg
              and here it is
              http://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2013-09/thumbs/1379127760_o4-1.jpg
              and honestly tell yourself which one is more technically and technologically more difficult it will be the answer to you why they chose dry for PAKFA.
              This is a fact.
              The dry experience is no less, and as for heavy machines, then more.
              First, "ideology"
              Yeah, and by the time the IFIs took off, they already realized that they were wrong.
              indeed, "from the 80s." And what about the Americans from other years?
              Do you see what the problem with the Americans was the 80s were different, they in the 80s already developed the concept of a network of centric wars and developed the theory of global lightning strike, and we all played in Chapaev, is that more clear or deploy?
              And if we have a market, then arrange the competition of READY SAMPLES!
              Yes, there was this competition and the MFI lost it. Nobody would listen to Pogosyan if his arguments were not more weighty than those of the Migovites. It’s just that the S-37 is much more technologically advanced than 1.44, it already provided for the very concept of distributed control of the battlefield, smart skinning, composites, EMFs, ESR issues were better developed, options were developed with CBS and with a classic trapezoidal wing, a single-engine light version, but you and then you can fool yourself with a search for a black cat in a dark room in the hope that she is there.
              And not concepts that exist only on paper.
              The T-50 is in the air and is being tested, half of what worked out on the S-37 stands as a base on the Su-35S, what other concepts are needed?
              1. aviator65 19 October 2015 09: 34 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: adept666
                It’s just that the S-37 is much more technologically advanced than 1.44, it already contained the very concept of distributed control of the battlefield, smart casing, composites,

                Well yes. One wing is worth it!
              2. avia1991 19 October 2015 23: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: adept666
                T-50 is in the air and is being tested,

                The prototype MiG-1.44 also flew, really, and .. to put it mildly - somewhat earlier than Drying. Let me remind you of some facts:
                The development of the aircraft began at the Design Bureau named after P.O. Sukhoi in the late 1990s. The competition of projects under the PAK FA program, announced in April-May 2001, was won in 2002 by the T-50 fighter project.

                The prototype T-50-1 made its first flight on January 29, 2010 at the Dzemgi airfield in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The program of the first phase of the PAK FA tests began on April 29, 2010 at the LII base in Zhukovsky (Moscow Region)
                http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-254.html
                But that’s not the point: when a decision is made in favor of a specific design bureau, the rest is “not shining” from the word ABSOLUTELY, be they a hundred times better! Since then, nothing has changed: decisions are made not objectively, but based on the personal sympathies (interest) of the "solvers".
                In general, given WHAT time Mikoyanites managed to create not just a project - a flying prototype! - before them it is worth taking off a hat. And in connection with this, in particular, I’m not very clear about the arrogantly dismissive reasoning that "
                Quote: adept666
                Just S-37 is much more technologically advanced 1.44

                You do not see the essence of the question completely, despite the “logical mindset”: when Mikoyan had a ready prototype - Sukhoi T-50 HAS NOT EVEN IN THE DRAWINGS! Do you compare the dates?
                And then, after gaining access to all the documentation on 1.44, Poghosyan “cananeously” created, after several years, a “more technological design”!
                Where is your logic, sir? belay
                1. adept666 20 October 2015 06: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The prototype MiG-1.44 also flew, really, and .. to put it mildly - somewhat earlier than Drying.
                  The S-37 first felt the skies on September 25, 1997, in the 2000s it was already flying aerobatics at closed shows, the MiG-1.44 - on February 29, 2000 a couple of taxiings and will take off in a straight line with the chassis unchecked. And they made their dry plan on the initiative taking money from their export! And the MIGs did MFIs at the request of the Ministry of Defense and received loot for development!
                  "does not shine" from the word AT ALL
                  So what? They lost the competition, what should they shine on?
                  IN WHICH
                  And what was dry for some other time? And they managed to make a plane with more complex fuselage geometries (only one company in the world had done this before) and even ahead of competitors in all stages smile
                  You don’t see the essence of the question at all, despite the “logical mindset”: when Mikoyan had a ready prototype, the Sukhoi T-50 HAS NOT EVEN IN THE DRAWINGS!
                  The dry one had a well-flying C-37, there were new innovative technologies for building the fuselage, they are the first of our aviators who widely used CAD systems. The C-37 versions with a more classic trapezoidal wing (one of which is now on the T-50) of one and twin-engine schemes were worked out before the mock-up stage (purge and discharge).
                  Do you compare the dates?
                  Once again, for the particularly stubborn: neither the S-37 nor the MiG-1.44 in 2000 met the requirements of the Moscow Region for the 5th generation aircraft, therefore they were officially considered as a competition of ideas, technologies and capabilities. The closest it was to the S-37, so the dry won.
                  And then, having access to all the documentation for 1.44
                  Yes, there is nothing in the T-50 from the MiG-1.44 from the word ABSOLUTELY (well, at least give one example if you really insist), what kind of nonsense? Here from the S-37 there are many.
                  Where is your logic, sir? belay
                  In its rightful place - in my head, and yours seems to have settled in another place because there is some kind of nonsense in the comments.
                  1. avia1991 20 October 2015 17: 04 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: adept666
                    The closest it was to the S-37, so the dry won.

                    Once again: the S-37 was NOT designed as a 5th generation fighter. And these are NOT MY thoughts - this is the definition of Sukhoi Design Bureau. Yes - an experimental aircraft for testing technologies. Well done, what they did - I'm not against the Sukhoi Design Bureau, as such! I am against neglect of the work of other scientists and designers! Which more often, by the way (attitude) is shown by those who themselves have not been able to accomplish much in life .. don’t take it upon yourself, they don’t talk about those present hi (in general, I don’t think of you like that, frankly - but in your desire to prove your point of view, you seem to be ready to grab the bat laughing )
                    To close the topic, let's recall one thing: The Raptor went into operation in 2001. Our 5th generation is still "learning to fly" .. In my opinion, this is the main thing, and this tells us once again that our government ALL NEEDS TO BE DONE IN TIME.
                    1. adept666 20 October 2015 19: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Yes - an experimental aircraft for testing technologies.
                      So it became already after the requirements for 5-ke at the Moscow Region changed.
                      I am against neglect of the work of other scientists and designers!
                      And I'm against the sweeping praise of mediocre things.
                      but in your quest to prove your point you seem to be ready to grab onto the bat
                      I do not have other methods smile
                      The Raptor went into operation in 2001. Our 5th generation is still "learning to fly" ..
                      Until then, our industry was not corny able to produce the entire range of necessary technologies for the 5th generation machine.
                      EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ON TIME.
                      Yes, everything is fine with time, the F-22 took a long run-in / fixed / finished, as a result, was discontinued without even releasing a series of 200 cars, the F-35 is a weak competitor for the T-50, so you can not rush much with PAKFA, but calmly do everything because he has no competitors yet.
                      1. avia1991 20 October 2015 22: 54 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: adept666
                        So it became already after the requirements for 5-ke at the Moscow Region changed.

                        So he was originally. You probably read the story of Sukhoi Design Bureau? They themselves talk about it.
                        At the time of the creation of the S-37, the MO could not have any requirements for the “five” - it simply had no money for anything!
                        Quote: adept666
                        Until then, our industry was not corny able to produce the entire range of necessary technologies for the 5th generation machine.
                        That's it: we come to the price of production. That is, the ideas are brilliant! But we cannot realize them .. but we need to defend ourselves with something. But what is available for production does not suit us! I want, you know, something "abruptly" .. AND NOT MOGETZSTSA wassat .
                        Quote: adept666
                        everything is fine over time, the F-22 has been running in for a long time / fixed / brought up as a result is discontinued
                        And in the case of the timely creation of the 5th generation, the designers today would have already taken up generation number 6 - and the Americans with a tongue behind their back would try to catch up with us!
                        It turns out that we “magnanimously” slowed down at a distance, giving the opponent time to respite? Is it too humane? lol
                      2. adept666 21 October 2015 07: 32 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        So he was originally. You probably read the story of Sukhoi Design Bureau? They themselves talk about it.

                        I read, I read))) It is understandable that the S-37 was experimental (at the time of construction) due to the fact that no one needed the Air Force or the Navy anymore. The first prayed on the MiG-1.42 / 44, the second “ended” aircraft carriers. Only C-37-1 (usually forget to write a unit, but this is important fellow ) - this is a flying S-32, which was planned in the late 80s serial (or rather, as the Su-27KM) for the fleet. However, we turn on the brains and abstract from all the words of the same former chief designer of the S-32 Simonov about the S-37 and carefully look at the car and ask ourselves a couple of questions from the category: why the machine for working out technologies: 1 operating OLS? 2: satellite station behind the cockpit lantern? 3: rear hemisphere surveillance radar in the right keel beam? Further, if you say it was not planned as a fifth-generation aircraft, what kind of generation should it be if the C-22 theme was work on a promising aircraft to replace the Su-27 (4th generation). If it hadn’t been built as a promising side, and just for the development of technologies, you would not have paid so much attention to details, it’s expensive, unreasonable and just plain stupid. In addition to constructing new fuselage forms, all these technologies are quietly being developed on the Su-27 (both a rectangular nozzle and a new cockpit and a new OLS and a new satellite communications station, and a new radar station, etc., etc.). If he was just a technology development he would be like the X-29.
                        That's it: we come to the price of production. That is, the ideas are brilliant!
                        Not brilliant, but correct!
                        But we cannot realize them .. but we need to defend ourselves with something.
                        Already a might, and it’s not the planes that protect us, but the Strategic Missile Forces all these years.
                        But what is available for production does not suit us!
                        Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-34 are relatively new and quite competitive with almost everyone in the sky. Buying means satisfied.
                        And in case of timely creation of the 5th generation by us
                        What are you talking about? We can only now create the 5th generation. How could we create it if we did not have industry for it?
                        would have already taken up generation 6
                        good
                        It turns out that we "magnanimously" slowed down at a distance
                        We try not to make mistakes like our friends with the F-22, and with the F-35 ...
                  2. yehat 20 October 2015 23: 12 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    you are trivial
                    F-35 for 2 years "went into operation" so what?
                    not a single combat compound so far
                    the F-22 was no better.
                    The T-50 is now mainly held back by engine development, and before that, the high cost of developing avionics was holding back
                    It would be as much money as the Americans would have already started mass production long ago.
                    and in general, I believe that we are not behind in aviation, but in chemistry and electronics
            2. avia1991 19 October 2015 23: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And about this
              Quote: adept666
              You see what the problem is with the Americans, the 80s were different
              I'm sorry - that's really funny. No offense, dear: Are you a programmer? Then, on the basis of what special knowledge do you reason about the manufacturability or lack of prospects of an aircraft? Moreover, you offer to originally evaluate the "technological complexity":
              Quote: adept666
              What other truth do you need? Just visually compare the two products, these are:
              I’m not a programmer - and I’ll never get into a dispute on this subject after reading several popular articles - this will not help me become a specialist.
              Why "funny": technological innovations appear in developed countries often almost simultaneously. And this happens not only thanks to the actions of intelligence, but also due to the naturally identical orientation of the work of scientists and designers: we all get a close education, and think mainly in similar categories.
              Therefore, the 80s of us - ordinary citizens - with SAME Americans were, of course, different. But the scientists - very similar! And the concepts visible to them then were really close. And if Mikoyan had such a funding as the creators of “Raptor”, and even without the “dashing 90s” - I think that not only the Americans would have “rested” now, but also - perhaps - Poghosyan with his team. hi
              1. adept666 20 October 2015 07: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I'm sorry - that's really funny. No offense, dear: Are you a programmer?
                It was like in the morning what
                Then, on the basis of what special knowledge do you reason about the manufacturability or lack of prospects of an aircraft?
                I was finishing physical education. I have experience in developing CAD systems, at one time algorithms for mat systems. modeling such a discipline as fluid and gas dynamics, took part in the development of wireless communication lines. Do you somehow think narrowly about programmers, do not everyone know if they program a calculator smile
                But the scientists - very similar! And the concepts visible to them then were really close.
                Scientists are quite possible, but managers have alas not. If THEM grasped for any innovation, then we usually slowed it down and until the Americans did not develop such a thing and introduce it and remember it, and then they started to catch up. So it was from the time of RI, take a look at how many OUR patents are in the French Patent Office, how many stolen and implemented ideas that were then sold to us.
                And if Mikoyan had such a funding
                He had it, unlike dry ones, but they could not produce something innovative.
                1. avia1991 20 October 2015 12: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: adept666
                  He had it, unlike dry ones,

                  Maybe. Although, as far as I know, in 1994 the financing of the project was stopped, and the flight model was completed with the help of money obtained "in all possible ways."
                2. avia1991 20 October 2015 15: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  By the way:
                  Quote: adept666
                  Scientists are quite possible, but managers have alas not. If THEM grasped for any innovation, then we usually slowed it down
                  I did not say a word about managers. Actually, little has changed since then - just look at Rusnano, where Chubais is developing its nanotechnology with might and main.
                  But scientists worked in approximately the same direction, developing the “ideology” born in the 80s - in fact, the “Raptor” from there.
                  1. adept666 20 October 2015 19: 30 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Actually, little has changed since then.
                    I don’t know about Chubais, but the Defense Ministry has definitely changed the inertia of thinking, modern control centers have appeared, they are focusing on communications and reconnaissance, they are developing battle control systems, Ratnik, Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets, PAKFA have appeared, tests of the robotics advanced intelligence system are ending, robots themselves appeared, the concept of their application appeared, and in the future it will all work in a single control system. An unmanned KAMAZ drives at the training ground, tank builders are working on a robot based on the T-90 tank, etc.
                    But scientists worked in approximately the same direction, developing the “ideology” born in the 80s - in fact, the “Raptor” from there.
                    Scientists worked on what they were allowed to work on, and THEM scientists were allowed and even encouraged, and OUR people were most often banned and punished for such things.
                    1. avia1991 20 October 2015 22: 58 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: adept666
                      OUR people were most often banned and punished for this.

                      I can’t help myself asking: Are you sorry, how do you know about this? Themselves "affected", or what? Judging by the stories of others is not always a thankful job, agree?
                      Indeed, it doesn’t hinder some “scientists” to slow down sometimes - otherwise you can go completely “not there” laughing
                    2. adept666 21 October 2015 07: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      You, sorry, how do you know about this?

                      Wait, you yourself said that scientists think almost the same way, almost everyone has the same level, then why did we have such a difference with the USA (+ shobla) in the level of microelectronics, special machines, machine-tool building, robotics, metallurgy, etc. Ours could not generate this in their brains? - they could. This business is not necessary for the economy and the defense industry? - necessary. What was the catch? smile
                      Themselves "affected", or what?
                      No, I touched the edge at that time.
                      Judging by the stories of others is not always a thankful job, agree?
                      If these stories are confirmed by historical facts, for example, read the book Weapons of Victory (you can say Grabin’s autobiography) why not judge?
          2. avia1991 19 October 2015 23: 27 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Oh by the way! Forgot to answer your question:
            Quote: adept666
            honestly tell yourself which one is more technically and technologically more difficult it will be the answer to you why they chose dry for PAKFA.
            Honestly I can answer myself that, At first, just by looking at the photo, I can say a lot about the plane. But at the same time, the assessment of the level of technical excellence will be EXTREMELY arbitrary .. and most likely, based on the principle of "like-dislike." If this, in your opinion, is enough - then your attitude towards MiG is also clear.
            And secondly, I can say that I DO NOT KNOW WHY REASON the commission chose Sukhoi as the basic concept - given that at that time it was just a SKETCH DESIGN, while Mikoyan had a product ready for flight testing. Once again: why it was impossible to work out both versions simultaneously? After all, the Su-27 and MiG-29 got along! Although, perhaps, everything is much simpler: the layout 1.44 resembles the F-16. It may well be that someone did not like it.
            1. adept666 20 October 2015 07: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But at the same time, the assessment of the level of technical excellence will be EXTREMELY arbitrary .. and most likely, based on the principle of "like-dislike."
              And you think you can say a lot? laughing
              If this, in your opinion, is enough
              Inspection with addiction is more than enough to understand which of the products has a higher culture and complexity of production, which in turn indicates the capabilities of manufacturers.
              I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE REASON The Commission chose as the basic concept of Sukhoi - given that at that time it was just a SKETCH DESIGN,
              I have already answered this question more than once, but either you don’t see, or you don’t want to see. Sukhoi had flown for almost 3 years already an aircraft with a CBS, which, from the point of view of stealth and production technologies, was out of competition in the domestic market, there were its variants with a classic wing worked out and one of these wing variants is on the T-50.
              while Mikoyan had a product ready for flight tests
              It was, but did not meet the trends of the times, and besides that, poorly and poorly, there was nothing more to start flying out of equipment.
              After all, the Su-27 and MiG-29 got along!
              We got along while we had money. And as they were no longer needed to be selected and needed a heavy brot, as it is more universal.
              Although, perhaps, everything is much simpler: the layout 1.44 resembles the F-16.
              Thanks, laughed heartily, what other intriguing versions will be?
              1. avia1991 20 October 2015 16: 41 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: adept666
                And you think you can say a lot?

                I can. I do not see the need.
                We are talking about different things:
                I’m talking about the fact that there is no need to cherish the development that has made a significant contribution to the creation of a modern PAK FA. If you seriously think that the achievements of the Mikoyan design bureau are "not worth a damn," and none of them were used in the T-50, then you are naive as a child. And it seems not like hi
                You say, in short, that "Sukhoi Design Bureau is just super, and the rest is bullshit." In your opinion - can this be considered an objective attitude? Shrug off the MiG-29, the legendary MiG-21 - and much more! Wail the plane who was not even given the opportunity to prove his worth - this is easier than steamed turnip: think up what you want, as arguments - there’s nothing to refute anyway!
                As for the S-37 - the Sukhovites themselves, as I know, have never considered this aircraft as a candidate for mass production. Enthusiasm for CBS among the people is based, most often, on the unusual configuration. As regards practical application, in aviation it doesn’t happen that there are “pluses” and no “minuses”. And CBS has as many minuses as pluses.
                Your admiration for the complexity of T-50 technologies, compared to 1.44, does not take into account the price of these technologies, and the need for huge costs for the re-equipment and modernization of aircraft plants to use these technologies. And the "fish" turns out to be golden, in the literal sense.
                I would like to hope that an expensive aircraft will justify its cost with its effectiveness .. although it would be much better if this money did not need to be spent on weapons hi Alas, so far these are only dreams.
                Quote: adept666
                Thanks, laughed heartily, what other intriguing versions will be?
                Glad you figured it out and appreciated the joke wink . Although .. "in every joke there is a fraction of a joke": with our bureaucratic lawlessness, this option of decision-making may well be real.
                1. adept666 20 October 2015 20: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I - that there is no need to cherish the development that has made a significant contribution to the creation of a modern PAK FA
                  And I tell you that there is nothing in the PAKFA from MiG-1.44 from the word at all, if you have a specific example, then give it at last, and this is not an unfounded allegation. In T-10 from MiG-29 was for there and take oh how much could.
                  You say, in short, that "Sukhoi Design Bureau is just super, and the rest is poppycock.
                  I say, in short, Sukhoi Design Bureau was able to create, and then offer a more promising solution, and this does not at all beg the previous merits of the Migovites, but from 1.44 they flew, believe me it happens, even champions and favorites of the competition lose happen. wink
                  To scream a plane that was not even given the opportunity to prove its worth
                  And .. do you think you had to throw a bunch of dough on a plane that didn’t meet the time requirement? Well, apparently for fun smile
                  Fend off the MiG-29
                  The fact of the matter is that the process of design degradation in person, having torn everything and everyone in the PFI competition and then receiving a half from it in the form of LPFI, revealing to the world of the integral monster MiG-29 how could you create such mediocrity that is higher in the picture? If I didn’t know what design bureau these machines were designed for and they would show me and say that 1.44 is the next MiG-29 plane, I would turn it around my temple and say: BEING IT CAN’T!
                  Enthusiasm for CBS
                  My only enthusiasm for CBS is the very opportunity to create such a scheme, and even for supersonic flights, this is the level of designers, technologists and production workers.
                  this aircraft as a candidate for mass production.
                  Even as they considered and vparim wanted the Air Force first and then, when the Navy did not work out.
                  Your admiration for the complexity of T-50 technologies, compared to 1.44, does not take into account the price of these technologies
                  Advanced technologies are never cheap, but if used correctly they are repulsed many times. The SDI program did not reach even half of what was planned, but gave the amers such a range of technologies and solutions that they still live in this civilian and military commissar on this groundwork.
                  1. avia1991 20 October 2015 23: 46 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: adept666
                    if you have a concrete example, then give it at last, and so this is nothing on the basis of unfounded allegation

                    laughing ! I will answer you in the same way: your words are an unfounded unfounded statement!
                    Who of the designers today admits that he used someone’s best practices — original solutions — failure reports — the results of experiments to create his “ingenious creation” ?! I understand one thing: how Soviet scientists after the Second World War “squeezed out” everything that was possible from the Germans regarding the development of nuclear weapons and jet technology — just like any design bureau, having free access to the competitor’s documentation, wool it from cover to cover , raking everything to which perhaps the hands themselves did not reach .. yes, even just to confirm / refute their own research!
                    Quote: adept666
                    in your opinion it was necessary to throw a bunch of dough on the plane,
                    The aircraft needed to plow flight tests - at least, check the possibility of achieving the declared characteristics. Or do you think that simply stealing all the money invested in R&D at 1.44 was more practical?
                    Quote: adept666
                    Advanced technologies are never cheap, but if used correctly they are repulsed many times
                    I do not mind a single word! hi However, at that time, the country did not have the ability to implement these technologies, as you yourself said, neither financial nor production. At the same time, the SDI program had a solid financial foundation - plus a sizable influx of "brains", including and from the USSR.
                    It’s good, in general, to reason after the fact, having the info that we have today ...
                    Quote: adept666
                    My only enthusiasm for CBS is the very possibility to create such a scheme, and even for flights on supersonic
                    Sukhoi Design Bureau, as far as I know, failed, ultimately, to cope with the aerodynamic jolting of supersonic sound. Well - since you were engaged in modeling aerohydrodynamic flows, you obviously know this. Or maybe there is other information? Just interesting - without second thoughts.
                  2. adept666 21 October 2015 09: 23 New
                    • -1
                    • 0
                    -1
                    ! I will answer you in the same way: your words are an unfounded unfounded statement!
                    Yes lan? The general aerodynamic configuration of the MiG-1.44 is duck, the T-50 is normal, the first is built without taking into account the integral layout, the second with the integration of the layout, and then all the differences in the airframe are absolutely opposite in their layout and principle of operation (whether it is the placement of engines, the design of the air intakes horizontal / vertical stabilizers, etc.). Of the equipment, too, in general, nothing can be, since almost all of it was developed after the topic of MFIs was closed.
                    Or do you think that simply stealing all the money invested in R&D at 1.44 was more practical?
                    If the machine no longer met the requirements and, according to the customer, was unsuccessful, what was the point of continuing and spending money? To check whether the Migovites were able to do what they asked of them in the 80s?
                    Sukhoi Design Bureau, as far as I know, failed, ultimately, to cope with the aerodynamic jolting of supersonic sound.
                    It was not possible, but the work was curtailed as they won the competition for the T-50 with a traditional wing. Two projects simply would not physically pull. Yes, and pouring money into an unnecessary Air Force / Navy plane no longer made sense. In general, as regards the S-37, here is such a fact that for the construction of the flight prototype no models were built for static tests (and this is for KOS !!!), they were carried out on "light" loads on the flight prototype, and then they were calculated! If they had given money to continue the topic of CBS, then it is quite possible that they could overcome the flutter on the supersound (or maybe not laughing ).
  3. pilot8878 18 October 2015 23: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: dyksi
    In general, the fourth generation at the moment, an order of magnitude more effective than the fifth

    It is likely, but the whole point is to change the concept itself. When the first 4th generation cars appeared, the latest versions of the 3rd generation cars were at least as good as them. So now - the operation will begin (someday, I hope), and modernization will begin.
    Quote: dyksi
    T-50 has no afterburner supersonic

    Not yet.

    Quote: dyksi
    "Rafal" on the drum, he brings down the "Raptor" and is recognized as one of the best fighters in the world and in its performance characteristics it surpasses both the western and our fighters in terms of combat radius and armament, and as a fighter, few can compare with it.

    That is, you propose to spit on the PAK FA and buy "Rafaley"? Meanwhile, the striped ones will master the “raptor”, find out its problems, modify it, master the “lightning”, modify it, and we will be VERY very and unpleasantly surprised: “But how is it that we have no aircraft manufacturing, no air force, and who is to blame for this ? "
  4. GSH-18 19 October 2015 16: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I am not a supporter of suctioning a plane that is conceptually inadequate to the demands of the times and the Russian Defense Ministry. He even looks outwardly unpresentable. This is a crocodile from the 90s. I would not want our pilots to fly on this.
    New and old Su cars have proven their worth. What's the point of throwing money out of what ?? fool It’s better to add PAK FA to the program. This car is really the 5th generation!
    1. tomket 19 October 2015 16: 55 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: GSH-18
      A plane that does not meet the requirements of the times and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

      "Typhoon" flies, and somehow it normally matches the demands of the time ...
      Quote: GSH-18
      He even looks outwardly unpresentable.

      You can say the same thing about t-50. It seems to be an undeniable progress compared to the 4 generation aircraft, but when you look at the t-50 and the same f-35, the t-50 is unconditionally inferior in terms of the quality of assembly and fitting of parts. But the plane 2000 years.
      Quote: GSH-18
      What's the point of throwing money out of what ??

      so they don’t throw them away. threw on do not understand what is called c-37.
      Quote: GSH-18
      This car is really 5-th generation!

      yeah. if you have already gone oblique for PGO on the MiG, then we ask a question about the compatibility of stealth technologies with s-shaped air intakes which are not on the t-50. or criticism towards t-50 is not accepted? and so it goes?
      1. adept666 20 October 2015 08: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "Typhoon" flies, and somehow it normally matches the demands of the time ...
        During the development of Eurofighter, the MiG-29 / Su-27 was adopted as an enemy standard, and during the development of PAKFA, F-22 was adopted. Initially, higher requirements for the project and therefore the difference is this.
        f-35, t-50 unconditionally inferior
        So unconditionally smile Give examples (in pictures) where the T-50 is worse fitted.
        so they don’t throw them away. threw on do not understand what is called c-37.
        On the S-37, as well as on the Su-35S, the Russian Defense Ministry did not throw a penny - this is the initiative work of Sukhoi for their money from export sales.
        yeah. if you have already gone oblique for PGO on the MiG, then we ask a question about the compatibility of stealth technologies with s-shaped air intakes which are not on the t-50. or criticism towards t-50 is not accepted? and so it goes?
        Criticism (reasonable) is accepted. As for the S-shaped air intakes, it is difficult to optimize them for the various stages of the flight: subsonic / supersonic / active maneuvering with large angles of attack. This significantly worsens the performance characteristics, imposes restrictions on maneuver. Therefore, the T-50 seems to have decided to abandon this screen option, there will be a radar - a blocker and cunning compressor blades (as on the NK-32).
  • Robinzon57 18 October 2015 12: 47 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But where can it be placed there? 99% - no. And if you look at the "face", we understand that stealth is not there either.

    I agree, the lineup of the 70s, and therefore looks from the perspective of 2015 caricatured. In this, Poghosyan was right.
  • Falcon 18 October 2015 13: 01 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But where can it be placed there? 99% - no.


    Well in j-20 they found a place. Here, too, I think they planned to place it in a similar way.

    1. Ze Kot 18 October 2015 15: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Falcon
      Well in j-20 they found a place. Here, too, I think they planned to place it in a similar way.


      He has air intakes on the side, and the MiG below
      1. Falcon 18 October 2015 16: 32 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: The Cat
        He has air intakes on the side, and the MiG below


        So what? They are S-shaped
        1. aviator65 19 October 2015 10: 14 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I can reassure all doubters. With the internal placement of the BC at 1.44, everything is more than safe. I personally saw what its compartment of the BC and the entire aircraft both from the inside and the outside are. Everything else was fine there, too. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to participate in the work on this machine from the full-size prototype stage to the first prototype. I draw your attention to the fact that he was on the slipways at the end of 89.
          Having read the posts of critics "tail and mane" of this project, I absolutely do not want to even engage in polemics. Sorry, but all this criticism is the same as telling the hostess that the borscht is not tasty and she doesn’t know how to cook it, although she just didn’t have time to cook it. Again, due to the fact that someone took and blocked her gas on the stove. And the conclusions, as always, are banal: "MiG sucks, Sukhovites advance all by definition, glory to Poghosyan!"
          1. adept666 20 October 2015 08: 39 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Fortunately, I had the opportunity to participate in the work on this machine from the full-size prototype stage to the first prototype.
            Three questions. 1: Who is the general designer of the aircraft? 2 What is the fundamental difference between the fuselages between 1.44 and 1.46? 3: Features of the pilot seat in layout 1.42.
            1. aviator65 20 October 2015 19: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Doubt it? You are welcome!
              1. The aircraft had a chief designer (not general) G. A. Sedov. The general designer is headed by OKB, at that time R. A. Belyakov. He oversaw the topic of Belosvet, deputy. general.
              2. 1.46 was in the preliminary design stage, and I personally did not participate in this work. I worked on the development of life support systems and rescue equipment directly at 1.42 / 1.44. Therefore, at that time I was not familiar with the features of 1.46, like most of the OKB employees. All information in the public domain about this possible modification appeared much later. I was not interested in her. But with my own eyes I saw all the changes that were made in 1.42 / 1.44 even at the layout stage. Of the most notable: the shape of the air intakes (it was originally animated), the shape of the PGO, the shape of the wingtips (initially there were guides for missiles similar to Su27), the shape and dimensions of the vertical tail, the configuration of the tail, the variant with rectangular deflectable nozzles similar to F22 was worked out, number and location points of external suspension. This is what I saw myself. And where did you get the information on! .46?
              3. The chair was one of the K36 modifications with a back deflected to 30 *. A new ORK (integrated communications connector) was also installed on the armchair.
              And I have a counter question for you: in what color was the model 1.44 originally painted?
              1. adept666 21 October 2015 09: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Doubt it? You are welcome!
                A little, you said above that at 1.44 internal placement of BC, right? You can ask a little more specific where?
                1. aviator65 21 October 2015 20: 31 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: adept666
                  You can ask a little more specific where?

                  Your photo when and where? This is the first.
                  Secondly. I wrote about what took place at the beginning of 92.
                  Thirdly. Remind me how many copies of this machine were built in metal? It’s not difficult for me: ed. 1.42 - full-scale model for statistical tests - 1 pc., Ed. 1.44 - the first flight sample, again for testing - 1 pc. Do you think that on the first full-scale model, which even a prototype can be called with a stretch, all the technical solutions inherent in the project should be implemented?
                  Still recall, in what period was this sample created? The project was actually financially strangled, and in terms of implementation too! The thought of trying to save costs and time, but finally get the 1st flight instance, does not occur to you? And the first flight T-50, what could immediately go into battle?
                  Well, what, will we continue to discuss the taste of undercooked cutlets?
                  1. adept666 22 October 2015 07: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Your photo when and where? This is the first.
                    At MAKS 2015, but there is also an older photo, the beginning of the 2000s
                    Do you think ... all the technical solutions inherent in the project should be implemented?
                    No, of course, but these are not my words: With the internal placement of the BC at 1.44 more than safely. , and your. It is 1.44 in the photo. What am I actually ... You see how many screw connections of the fuselage panels, they are attached to something, right? smile So there are elements of the rigidity of the skin (beams / frames), i.e. power elements of the fuselage initially did not assume the presence of emptiness there. In these situations, you can’t just take and make the sashes, everything will have to be counted and redone, i.e. the skeleton will be completely different. In the photo below you can better see the bathtub under the conformal arrangement of the weapon, the question is why do this if it was originally intended to make a bomb gate? Maybe not everything was so good with the internal BC at 1.44 and that’s why the project was adjusted and the 5th generation contest came out with drawings of a completely different machine, and not the one in the photo in the article? smile
                    The thought of trying to save costs and time, but finally get the 1st flight instance, does not occur to you?
                    Comes, but if there was supposed to be a bomb-gate, then a glider designed for emptiness would initially be sheathed in a different way and there would be no bath for armaments, would it not? wink
                    And the first flight T-50, what could immediately go into battle?
                    We kind of objectively talk about the internal location of the BC, and not about the battle, so the T-50-1 bombing bay is not full of rivets wink
                    Well, what, will we continue to discuss the taste of undercooked cutlets?
                    What is there to continue? It is quite obvious that you are not telling the truth, stating that 1.44 has an internal arrangement of the ammunition and it is there judging by the design of the bottom and was not even supposed in the drawings. There are studies of this arrangement in other versions of the car, but for this it would have been necessary to completely redesign the glider and it would be a different side. hi
                  2. aviator65 22 October 2015 18: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: adept666
                    but for this one would have to completely redesign the glider and it would be a different side.

                    Well, well, apparently you know better. hi
  • Vadivak 18 October 2015 12: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: adept666
    Lord, how tired of these tears for the IFIs.


    Right, let the Chinese cry. The car was frankly not so hot, and the money was too heavy, and with regards to stealth, it wasn’t at all
  • Odysseus 18 October 2015 13: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: adept666
    So it turns out that the MiG-31 was made super-maneuverable, and not a 5th generation fighter.

    In general, it would be true if such a MiG-31 were brought to a deep modernization. It would replace the Su-27P.
    Quote: adept666
    As for Pogosyan, they say that he was the villain who killed a super plane because of his ugly duckling with CBS.

    In fairness, it must be said that the scheme with CBS is still stillborn. If compared with S-37, then, of course, it was necessary to bring 1.44.
    Quote: adept666
    . Poghosyan did the main thing - he created the TECHNOLOGY of PRODUCTION of the necessary components for the 5th generation fighter,

    Well, this is a too loud statement, some components are still missing, and even more so, it is doubtful for the period of the 80s-90s reviewed in the article.
    Well, you painted everything beautifully.
    1. adept666 18 October 2015 13: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In fairness, I must say that the scheme with CBS is still stillborn.
      Then the grandmother said for two, CBS (+ duck) is quite relevant, say for ship-based vehicles and is still conducting research on the S-37
      If we compare with the S-37, then, of course, it was necessary to bring 1.44.
      Neither one at the time of the decision to design a new side did not meet the requirements. Another thing is the technology of airframe production itself was better worked out in Sukhoi Design Bureau, more work was done on new materials, they had more money because of foreign orders, plus the financial part, heavy fighters are better sold, they are more versatile and have greater modernization potential (more powerful is the energy sector, more internal volume, more fuel, etc.) Yes, and for the Russian Air Force, it is the heavy board that is more relevant, therefore they gave those who had better technology, more money and experience in the design of heavy machines.
      Well, this is a too loud statement, some components are still missing, and even more so, it is doubtful for the period of the 80s-90s reviewed in the article.
      Well no. Already there was a huge amount of work on composites (including everything necessary for SERIAL production) of KOS with its elastic divergence, it’s still a dirty trick, but the plane flew in supersonic as well, including EMDS (later it will appear on the Su-35S) , worked out new solutions in the mechanization of the wing, new technologies for the production of parts of the airframe, which already made it possible to make SMART sheathing (sensors, for example, to build various ones, which were vital for the CBS scheme in order to measure the load in dynamics and maneuver, and this is TECHNOLOGY), There was a serial OVT on the Su-30MKI (CLIVT only on an experimental machine), during the implementation of foreign orders we managed to work with bourgeois electronics, adapt it to our systems, form requirements for our own electronic industry on the basis of these components, and much more.
  • tomket 18 October 2015 16: 11 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: adept666
    C-37 was built with the wide use of composites, so that for the production of its airframe, a special production of integral large-knot parts of the fuselage of complex shapes was established and it was this reserve that allowed us to work on the PAKFA. Poghosyan did the main thing - he created the TECHNOLOGY of MANUFACTURE of the necessary components for the fighter of the 5 generation, and now he creates a board based on these technologies! And on the basis of technologies for creating 4-generation machines (which was demonstrated in the IFIs), the fifth-generation board could not be built, however much it would be desirable.

    Yes. Here are just from large-sized composite parts now basically refuse. Because they are NOT REPAIRABLE. one hole in the wing of a bullet in everything. Hey. At the same Raptor, the concept of reasonable sufficiency of composites with their replacement with titanium was introduced. However, Poghosyan is very smart at our place, and pilots will pay as always.
    1. adept666 18 October 2015 17: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      large-component parts made of composite are now largely abandoned.
      The share of composites in aircraft from aircraft to aircraft is growing and this trend will not change, without them, it will not be possible to achieve new qualitative changes in the performance characteristics. The concept of their application is changing. I agree with this.
      Because they are NOT REPAIRABLE. one hole in the wing of a bullet in everything
      What bullet? This is not an armored personnel carrier))) The fragments and the striking elements of missiles would have written alright smile Yes, indeed, most composites usually have low impact strength, so they must be used carefully, but there are breakthrough technologies in this direction, for example, fiber composites with a metal matrix. However, if the damaging elements damage the aluminum wing, then in the same way it will not be recoverable, as the whole plane crashed to the ground laughing
      At the same Raptor, the concept of reasonable sufficiency of composites with their replacement with titanium was introduced.
      When they made a raptor (25 years ago), they simply could not create the required level of composites, so they replaced it with expensive titanium (with an increase in mass and the LTH from the calculated floated as a result of this), however, it alone has thermoplastic carbon plastics 10-15% of the total mass of the glider, and the total share of composites reaches 40-50% i.e. almost half of the composites smile
      However, Poghosyan is very smart at our place, and pilots will pay as always.
      Well, tell the teacher how to build airplanes, given that he must take a lot of fuel, do not glow on radars, have high profitability while taking on board a bunch of equipment, weapons, withstand overloads up to 9g and shortly up to 10-11g, with all of these the delights of maneuvering like a bee. Where the brilliant Michurins only take you ...
      1. tomket 18 October 2015 19: 27 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: adept666
        What bullet? This is not an armored personnel carrier)))

        Bullet, splinter, the difference is not great.
        Quote: adept666
        but there are breakthrough technologies in this direction

        Tell me, have these breakthrough technologies been applied in c-37?
        Quote: adept666
        However, if the damaging elements damage the aluminum wing, then in the same way it will not be recoverable, as the whole plane crashed to the ground

        in my opinion there was a photo with a bursting rocket in the nozzle f-15. and even the scattered Su-25 reaching the base cannot be counted ...
        Quote: adept666
        Well, tell the teacher how to build airplanes, given that he must take a lot of fuel, do not glow on radar,

        What should I tell? there is c-37 there is 1.44. two different concepts of aircraft structure.
        1. adept666 18 October 2015 21: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Tell me, have these breakthrough technologies been applied in c-37?
          They are at PAKFA, and the technologies for the production and design of composites in general and in particular were worked out at S-37 because it was precisely because of CBS that they required them. Thanks to that enormous work, the dry have the opportunity to build advanced gliders, but the Migovans do not, and that will be so already obvious in the late 90s.
          in my opinion there was a photo with a bursting rocket in the nozzle f-15. and even the scattered Su-25 reaching the base cannot be counted ...
          C-37 having received a rocket into the nozzle would most likely have reached the base in the same way, but this is actually a bad example, are we about the wing and aren't there composites?))) As for the Su-25, it’s an attack aircraft and it has higher combat survivability requirements than any other side, there is only titanium armor per ton. It was created to survive in the batch. In this case, purely for fun, look at its performance characteristics, in fact they eloquently say that if you need a maneuverable board with high performance characteristics, titanium is not for you, you need light composites wink
          1. avia1991 20 October 2015 02: 59 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: adept666
            Thanks to that enormous work, the dry have the opportunity to build advanced gliders, but the Migovans do not, and that will be so already obvious in the late 90s.

            It seems that you are the General Designer of Sukhoi Design Bureau, so well you "know" the possibilities of his team wassat
            Here is a comment by a person who directly (according to him) worked in the MiG Design Bureau when creating MFIs - he, unlike you, is much more restrained - and clearly more objective - in his assessments.
            1. adept666 20 October 2015 08: 44 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              It seems that you are the General Designer of Sukhoi Design Bureau
              Alas and ah ...
              so well you "know" the possibilities of his wassat team
              I really know someone.
              Here is a comment by a person who directly (according to him) worked at MiG Design Bureau when creating MFI
              I saw his comment, even asked him a couple of questions. Let's see what answers and it will already be visible whether he worked or not.
              he, unlike you, is much more restrained
              So maybe he basically just has nothing to say (didn’t you consider this option? smile )
              and clearly more objective - in assessments.
              And what is its objectivity manifested? He actually did not say anything, or did I miss some comment on him? Moreover, he is an interested person (if he worked on the project), few can admit his loss and mistakes.
              1. aviator65 20 October 2015 21: 48 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: adept666
                Moreover, he is an interested person (if he worked on the project), few can admit his loss and mistakes.
                Yes, God be with you! How can I, a simple mechanical engineer of one of the research departments of the Design Bureau, recognize a loss? I just did my job, and I liked and was interested in this work. And about interest, it’s just a shame for me for the power ...
                1. adept666 21 October 2015 11: 33 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Yes, God be with you!
                  Hope with me smile
                  And about interest, it’s just a shame for me for the power ...
                  Don’t worry, migrants have a chance of revenge smile It seems like they were given an easy PAKFA to design wink LFI developments, I think, still remained in the coffers.
                  1. aviator65 22 October 2015 21: 32 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: adept666
                    Don’t worry, migrants have a chance of revenge

                    Thank! I truly believe in this. drinks
  • mosquit 18 October 2015 06: 52 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Not a single photo in flight ... The plane did not fly... The sample carried out taxiing ...
    Vicious aerodynamic design ...
    Mythical "5 generation" and does not smell ...

    A purely personal opinion .. hi

    PS. It seems to fly ..
    1. Dryuya2 18 October 2015 08: 07 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      Quote: mosquit
      Not a single photo in flight ... The plane did not fly.

      winked
      2.09min ????
      1. McLuha-MacLeod 18 October 2015 09: 13 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Touches the screensaver before the flight - "FIRST PALETTE"
        1. Dryuya2 18 October 2015 09: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: McLooka-MacLeod
          "FIRST PALETTE"

          laughing
          1. Sling 18 October 2015 12: 33 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            and what is it., written in Belarusian
            1. noWAR 18 October 2015 15: 23 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Sling
              and what is it., written in Belarusian

              And on what?
        2. GSH-18 19 October 2015 16: 15 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: McLooka-MacLeod
          Touches the screensaver before the flight - "FIRST PALETTE"

          That's why he flew so that they decided not to continue lol
  • velikoros-xnumx 18 October 2015 06: 58 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The article is mostly delusional, specifications taken from Wiki. Al-41f with its thrust would be unlikely to provide max. a speed of more than 3000 km / h at the level of Mig 31 with its phenomenal d-30f6, EPR 0,3 M2 ???. It is close to Eurofighter, the radar absorbing coating and armament inside the fuselage would of course give a serious reduction in the EPR, but not to the indicated figure.
    1. adept666 18 October 2015 08: 28 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Al-41f with its thrust would be unlikely to provide max. a speed of more than 3000 km / h at the level of Mig 31 with its phenomenal d-30f6,
      The thrust on the afterburner AL-41F is 2500 kgf more than that of d-30f6 (do not confuse it with truncated AL-41F1).
  • mosquit 18 October 2015 07: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Key features of the MiG 1.44: duck-type design, triangular wing with high aerodynamic quality

    Vicious scheme

    engines with variable thrust vector (planned to be installed)

    planned to install

    radar absorbing coating

    Plain paint

    placing all or most of the weapons inside the aircraft fuselage

    This is a fantasy, for this model, the only ammunition placed inside the fuselage is a gun with ammunition (which is not) ...

    two adjustable air intakes

    it is a necessity for supersonic, and there are two engines ... wink
    1. sa-ag 18 October 2015 08: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: mosquit
      Plain paint

      Not ferromagnetic?
      1. mosquit 18 October 2015 20: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This sample has the usual ...
    2. adept666 18 October 2015 08: 52 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Vicious scheme

      In the MiG-1.44, the main wing is located in the bevel of the stream from the front horizontal tail (+ the original fuselage design as well), so many unpleasant drawbacks of the scheme are either completely eliminated or significantly leveled, for example, such as “pecking” at large angles of attack. Plus, if there were dvigla with OVT, modern software on a powerful computer, then the car would show in the air a fortress no worse than Su-35S smile But the payload (theoretical EU) of 12 tons is very impressive. But the time of such machines has already passed, now it’s the time of silent killers, and there are serious problems with the EPR on this board (including due to PGO). All our designers did the right thing, looked at the operation of the F-22, took into account its shortcomings, developed a methodology and the concept of reasonable sufficiency between the LTX and stealth, received the necessary technological and production reserve, re-equipped the production facilities and issued an excellent PAKFA machine.
      this is a necessity for supersonic, and two engines ... wink

      How does the F-22 do without this need?
      This is a fantasy, for this model, the only ammunition placed inside the fuselage is a gun with ammunition (which is not) ...
      In fact, the fuselage placement, even with such a scheme, is possible between the engines and the first section of the air intakes (then they go around the top), the question remains in volume)))
      1. Falcon 18 October 2015 13: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: adept666
        But the payload (theoretical EU) in 12 tons is very impressive.


        There was a book about the 5 generation. They were given a load capacity of 5 tons. 12 is unlikely. it’s still an interceptor, not a drummer.

        Quote: adept666
        But the time of such cars has passed, now the time of silent killers


        As a replacement for the Mig-31 completely. Minimum functionality and prices, a lot of fuel, a powerful engine, 2-4 rockets. Relatively cheap interceptor. Of course not a fighter like the T-50, but the interceptor is quite.
        1. adept666 18 October 2015 13: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          There was a book about the 5 generation. They were given a load capacity of 5 tons. 12 is unlikely. it’s still an interceptor, not a drummer.
          With such a scheme and such engines it’s quite possible to pull 12 tons off the ground, another thing is how they should be placed in the fuselage (there are all kinds of loads smile )
          As a replacement for the Mig-31 completely.
          Except that...
      2. mosquit 18 October 2015 19: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: adept666
        In the MiG-1.44, the main wing is located in the bevel of the stream from the front horizontal tail (+ the original fuselage design as well), so many unpleasant drawbacks of the scheme are either completely eliminated or significantly leveled, for example, such as “pecking” at large angles of attack. Plus, if there were dvigla with OVT, modern software on a powerful computer, then the car would show in the air a fortress no worse than Su-35S

        ..by ..by Do not fantasize, the story is not subjunctive ...
        Quote: adept666
        How does the F-22 do without this need?

        Are you sure that channels 22 are not adjustable? After all, they regulate the flow ... laughing
        http://www.google.com/patents/WO2012148318A1?cl=ru
        A supersonic adjustable flat (two-dimensional) air intake is known, in which the flow is decelerated on an adjustable multistage direct wedge in a series of oblique shock waves. To improve the characteristics of the air intake on the wedge, perforation can be performed, and in the throat area, a transverse slit of the boundary layer drain. (Remeev N.Kh. Aerodynamics of air intakes of supersonic aircraft. TsAGI ed., Zhukovsky, 2002, 178 pp.)

        Analogs include the supersonic air intake of an F-22 aircraft, which implements a spatial compression scheme for supersonic flow Ί (Aerodynamics, stability, and controllability of supersonic aircraft, edited by G.S.Bushgenz. - M .: Nauka. Fizmatlit, 1998). To reduce the radar signature of the F-22 aircraft, the air intake is made with sweeping all the edges of the entrance. In the front view, the entrance to the air intake is in the form of a parallelogram. The air intake has one braking step on perforated vertical and horizontal wedges, air bypass flaps in the channel. The air intake duct is S-shaped. The ability to control the minimum passage area (throat) is absent. The disadvantages include the lack of regulation of the throat of the air intake of the F-22 aircraft. For this reason, its characteristics at supersonic flight modes are lower than the level characteristic of adjustable air intakes (System analysis of the technical appearance of the F / A-22 “Reptor” aircraft, report of FSUE “GosNIIAS” Ka68 (15396) 2005). Apparently, the air intake is not designed to fly with a Mach number greater than M = 2.0 (Aerodynamics, stability and controllability of supersonic aircraft, edited by G. S. Byushgens. - M .: Nauka. Fizmatlit, 1998).


        Quote: adept666
        In fact, the fuselage placement, even with such a scheme, is possible between the engines and the first section of the air intakes (then they go around the top), the question remains in volume)))

        Alas, this is a fantasy ...
        Take a closer look at the Mig-25/31 ... they have at least between the air intakes in the frontal projection of the cockpit ...
        With this arrangement, it is impossible to place something from the armament between the SU ... hi
        1. adept666 18 October 2015 22: 03 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          ..by .. do not fantasize, history is not subordinate ...

          Without a flight of thought and fantasy, progress would have stopped.
          Are you sure that channels 22 are not adjustable?
          I am sure. You then carefully wrote to me in the comments: The ability to control the minimum passage area (throat) is absent. The disadvantages include the lack of regulation of the throat of the air intake of the F-22 aircraft. For this reason, its characteristics at supersonic flight modes are lower than the level characteristic of adjustable air intakes.
          Alas, this is a fantasy ...
          Fantasy, not fantasy, but theoretically it is possible, look above at the Chinese with an open hatch, it’s just done for him as I wrote, despite the fact that his air intakes are spaced apart, their channels above the hatch pass from above.
  • mosquit 18 October 2015 07: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    According to my student data, the aircraft was designed as an interceptor, including satellites (with the corresponding missile) ...
    If you want, you can open the janes of the second half of the 80s, there was a picture, though the engine 4 ...
  • Free wind 18 October 2015 08: 14 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I am uneducated in this thread, but judging by the picture this is not the 5th generation. I can’t say if MIGs are needed, but in principle light fighters are probably needed to cover troops, especially MIGs can take off from bad airfields. But here they turned down the prices for airplanes and the Ministry of Defense refuses to buy this, plus there are some problems with the radar. that is, it does not have any analogs in the world, it doesn’t work, the old 30 radars will be installed on the first 35 cars, I'm talking about the MIG. Muti much incomprehensible.
  • sevtrash 18 October 2015 08: 35 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Most likely, MiG 1.44 MFI fell victim to the collapse of the USSR.
    "... Meanwhile, during the construction of the prototype machine there were problems 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 entered into a severe crisis on a grand scale ..."

    Without this, they would have done for sure, another question would be Mig at the level of f22. The lag in the electronic component has not gone away, and this gave additional tens / hundreds? kilogram, well, and efficiency.
    And regarding the "stealth" there were nuances:

    "... At the same time, a number of solutions, albeit related to individual features of 1.44, do not fit well with modern ideas about ways to reduce EPR: lower keels, which play the role of corner reflectors, neglect of the proven sawtooth organization of the edges of hatches and panels, angular joints of keels, wings and the fuselage, the presence of a gargrot with the same "corners" ...
    1. dmi.pris 18 October 2015 12: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      He fell victim to stupidity and greed .... In Soviet times, there were also backstage squabbles between the design bureau. But usually, before deciding on the production of equipment, they always carried out comparative tests of the proposed samples.
      Quote: sevtrash
      Most likely, MiG 1.44 MFI fell victim to the collapse of the USSR.
      "... Meanwhile, during the construction of the prototype machine there were problems 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 entered into a severe crisis on a grand scale ..."

      Without this, they would have done for sure, another question would be Mig at the level of f22. The lag in the electronic component has not gone away, and this gave additional tens / hundreds? kilogram, well, and efficiency.
      And regarding the "stealth" there were nuances:

      "... At the same time, a number of solutions, albeit related to individual features of 1.44, do not fit well with modern ideas about ways to reduce EPR: lower keels, which play the role of corner reflectors, neglect of the proven sawtooth organization of the edges of hatches and panels, angular joints of keels, wings and the fuselage, the presence of a gargrot with the same "corners" ...
  • cahekmosa 18 October 2015 09: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    An article is sucked from a finger, cutting of excerpts from the Internet, the only common thought at the end of an article about the loss of competition between KB.
  • da Vinci 18 October 2015 09: 37 New
    • -10
    • 0
    -10
    This plane, appeared in due time, would be a very chic addition (or Su 27, but as an invisibility - only with “plasma protection” (according to some experts). And MiG 29 reminds me of a stripped-down, cheaper clone of Su 27, and eventually losing to him in combat capabilities. yes
    1. vladimir_krm 18 October 2015 16: 12 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Yeah. Just the opposite: Su-27 clone MiG-29 :)
      The prototype Su-27 did not work, I had to redesign the project completely, borrowing on the recommendations of TsAGI the scheme of the MiG-29 that had already successfully taken off. Academician Buschgens said:
      http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2007-07-20/5_wings.html
    2. tomket 18 October 2015 16: 22 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: da Vinci
      And the MiG 29 reminds me of a stripped-down, cheaper clone of Su 27, and as a result, losing to it in combat capabilities. IMHO

      Nothing that MiG-29 appeared before ????
      1. da Vinci 18 October 2015 16: 38 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Perhaps the more surprising is the inertia of the MiG corporation! belay
        1. tomket 18 October 2015 19: 14 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: da Vinci
          the more surprising is the inertia of the MiG corporation!

          What is the inertia ???? In the fact that they previously created the MiG-29 and 1.44?
  • Zaurbek 18 October 2015 10: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    If 1.44 were ready and better than the Raptor, it would have been finalized and adopted. In fact, it was a semi-finished product with the best practices of the 5th generation. And the design bureau did not live up to the 2000s. Who would finish this plane? The 5th generation is so complicated and expensive that the strength of one KB is not enough, therefore they unite the KB. This is happening all over the world. A light front-line fighter is very necessary. Otherwise, in quantitative terms, we will lag behind and lose in the export market in the next century. Of the new aircraft, there will be F35 and a Japanese fighter and different 4 +++ and a Chinese light one.
    1. tomket 18 October 2015 19: 19 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      If the 1.44 were ready and better than the Raptor, it would have been finalized and adopted. In fact, it was a semi-finished product with the achievements of the 5 generation

      The history of 1.44 is very similar to the history of ka-50. By analogy with the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Kamov in every possible way inserted sticks into the wheels of the Mil Design Bureau. As a result, the loser of all Mi-28 contests went into service. Ka-52 also appeared with the absolute apathy of the country's leadership and the generals. It came to such tragicomic oddities when during the exercises in 2004. The Ka-50 saw the government of Kazakhstan and asked them to deliver these helicopters, our leadership realized how the saying goes, "you need such a cow yourself."
      1. Zaurbek 18 October 2015 19: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You're wrong. Ka 50-ready and well-developed model, Ka 52 was so quickly created precisely because of this. Technically, the machines are the same, only places-2. Electronics made as the development of the electronic industry. And then an experienced aircraft, an experienced aerodynamic design built on 4th generation units. Sukhoi had the S-47 Golden Eagle, for the same done.
        1. tomket 18 October 2015 20: 37 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Zaurbek
          You're wrong. Ka 50 - a ready-made and elaborated sample, Ka 52 was

          The Ka-52 has come a long way to its final appearance. In the process of which he overgrown with both additional equipment and capabilities. To judge what the 1.44 could become based on a prototype on which some parts from serial fighter jets were used, in order to speed up the construction of the prototype is at least silly. This prototype was built to verify the correctness of the choice of this aerodynamic scheme. We were going to add equipment and make changes on another prototype. Then the stupid analysis begins. There wasn’t it, it wasn’t ... There would be funding, there would have been an AFAR and a thrust vector and a compartment with weapons .....
          1. Zaurbek 18 October 2015 21: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ka50 was like Mi 28:
            - fuselage
            - Engines
            - Breo corrected for the 80s, but on the terms of reference
            - Armament, gun 2A46, NURSy, ATGM Whirlwind and other
            bailout system
            Did not have :
            - Thermal imager (in the USSR they were just starting to develop them)
            - The radar was not in those assignments.

            Of all the major structural changes, the cockpit was redone, if you look at the options for Turkey, then it is clear that this does not require reworking the entire glider. All of this is not in 1.44. It does not correspond to those assignment and 80-90 years.
          2. Zaurbek 18 October 2015 21: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ka50 was like Mi 28:
            - fuselage
            - Engines
            - Breo corrected for the 80s, but on the terms of reference
            - Armament, gun 2A46, NURSy, ATGM Whirlwind and other
            bailout system
            Did not have :
            - Thermal imager (in the USSR they were just starting to develop them)
            - The radar was not in those assignments.

            Of all the major structural changes, the cockpit was redone, if you look at the options for Turkey, then it is clear that this does not require reworking the entire glider. All of this is not in 1.44. It does not correspond to those assignment and 80-90 years.
  • Zaurbek 18 October 2015 10: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I did not like the article, except for phrases like "better and superior" there is nothing. In the 5th generation there are so many new technologies from electric wing mechanization to radar and engines that it is difficult to imagine this in an airplane of the 1990s. And allow yourself to make an improved 4th generation aircraft with the “live” Mig29 and Su27 more wasteful .. A lot can be achieved by modernization. Compare Mig 35 with 1.44 and discuss.
  • omulu 18 October 2015 11: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    My feeling is that KB Mikoyan is quietly being drained. There are no new contracts, only a trifle and most likely Poghosyan monopolizes the domestic military aviation market in Russia. And this is not the first time about this aircraft. Remember the story of the Yak-141, which was also hacked, and technology was successfully leaked to the West.
    1. Cap.Morgan 18 October 2015 11: 42 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      History has shown that vertical take-off aircraft in their characteristics are seriously inferior to traditional aircraft. Then why are they needed? Slaughtered and glory to God. Released more Dryers, instead of the frankly weak Yak.
      1. Boa kaa 18 October 2015 15: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        instead of the frankly weak Yak.

        Vertical lines are most likely needed for the fleet. BUT! Harrier - is in service and can even carry a UPS. F-35 with a single dvigl, like Harrier - made by technology Stealth, the carrier of SBP.
        The trouble with our aircraft industry is that we don’t have a Rolls-Royce or Pratt & Whitney turbojet engine like an adversary, so we have to carry 2 tons of PD behind us. So who can withstand this!
  • Aksakal_07 18 October 2015 11: 13 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    If I use the "style" of the author, "he is driven into black melancholy" by his assertion that "according to various sources, the first flight (speech about MiG-1.44) was on February 29, 1999 or 2000." How many classes did the author graduate if he admits that in February 1999 there were 29 days? This is not to mention the scatter in determining the date of a flight of one year - this is a lot for our information era, not in the Middle Ages it was happening.
  • marshes 18 October 2015 11: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It would be a good budget LFI, with one engine. Like the Chinese I-B-Chengdu J-10.
  • Cap.Morgan 18 October 2015 11: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Then there was no money stupidly. Now there is money, they began to pay attention to these issues. So I do not see a reason for writing. On the contrary, now other, fresh technical solutions have appeared in comparison with the year 2000.
  • Genry 18 October 2015 12: 32 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    What is the author so angry?
    The dry one had a Su-47 Golden Eagle with reverse sweep. Got the results and realized that it was not ...
    In fact, these are passing experiments for probing directions with new properties.
    The author, apparently soon, will write an article about the offended Tu-334 (based on the ancient 134), demanding that it be launched into production.
    1. max702 18 October 2015 23: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Genry
      . Got the results and realized that it was not ...

      The results there were not bad .. But there was a problem of too revolutionary engineering and technologies, that is, working a lot is desirable with unlimited funding. and the plane was needed at best tomorrow .. Here, using the obtained technologies, we went along the proven path of f-22 .. It is possible to return to the C-47 topic when designing the 6th generation, there, unlike 1.44, there really is a very big reserve for further work, and 1.44 it is a creatively redesigned MIG-31 and he could not give any revelations ..
      1. mav1971 18 October 2015 23: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: max702
        Quote: Genry
        . Got the results and realized that it was not ...

        The results there were not bad .. But there was a problem of too revolutionary engineering and technologies, that is, work on the edge is desirable with unlimited funding. and the plane was needed at best tomorrow ..


        What is too revolutionary here?
        Broken circuit and all. she does not bear anything worthy, and the costs are enormous.
        Dead end scheme.
  • Denis Skiff 18 October 2015 12: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: bmw
    I'm certainly not special in aviation, but the trend is obvious. Corporate interests in our country have become higher than the interests of the state and national security. The merger of different design bureau under the roof of the UAC all the same went to the detriment. They are money and money in Africa. Management in the trash.

    The transfer was in the alliance kb also fought. Today it is a little different form.
  • Aleksandr1959 18 October 2015 12: 45 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    The topic of the IFI was initial, when the concept of PAK FA did not exist. And then we have to thank ... including Mr. Poghosyan, who lobbied only those projects in which he himself participated. With the cover of the MiG 1.44 theme, time was lost. But, as they say, after a fire and a member of the pump ... The lessons of this story should be taken into account so that personality factors influence the development of aviation technology as little as possible.
  • Glagol1 18 October 2015 13: 07 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Article-mirage. Features 1.44 referenced by the author,
    taken from the ceiling. EPR 0,3 m2 especially. Mistaken about ten times ...
  • Pate 18 October 2015 13: 13 New
    • -7
    • 0
    -7
    Judging by the technical characteristics and armament, a magnificent fighter, it is a pity that he will not go into the series, but Sukhovsky T-50.
    1. dumkopff 18 October 2015 14: 42 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Don't you know? The t-50 has a maximum speed of 4500 km / h, afterburning supersonic sound, a flight range of 8000 km, and an EPR of 0,000005 square meters. And other buns. But shhh! It's a secret!
  • Diviz 18 October 2015 14: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    They put the plane at the MAKS show for the development of the project with other countries that will invest in its development and production.
  • foma2028 18 October 2015 14: 41 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    What I want to say about the article and comments.
    Firstly, competition between design bureaus has always been in all countries and it is not always "pure". Let us recall at least Tupolev and Sukhovskaya Sotka. It’s a sin for anyone, but it’s a sin for Mikoyanovites to complain about the aura of Anastas Mikoyan, the Design Bureau has always moved with a small handicap, especially in relation to the intelligent P.O. Sukhoi. I read in my memoirs (to the shame I forgot whose, Fedosov seems to be) that in TsAGI there was a green street at the MiG purge.
    So, when did the old-timers leave at TsAGI, the aviation industry, etc. then the pendulum naturally swung in the opposite direction. It happens.
    Further, there is an opinion that MiG Design Bureau fell victim to the fact that their factories were in the capital and large cities of the European part of Russia and had a high price for land, and therefore were famously bankrupt and sold by "brokers". And Sukhoi factories in Irkutsk, Novosibirsk, Komsomolsk were in this respect in a more gentle regime.
    The other side of the issue, the money from the sale of Sukhovtsy developed, and the Mikoyanovtsy more bought Chinese down jackets and other goods, ate money. This was noted in some memoirs and memoirs.
    Well, comparing the T-50, F-22 and 1.44 gliders, not even a specialist can see that the MiG's stealth is incomparably less, if at all. And the plasma generator and the absorbing paint are probably scratching the ears of customers from the famous design bureau. There were articles and books on this subject in order to absorb radio waves, all the more short coverage should be a few centimeters thick, if I’m certainly not mistaken, I read it a long time ago.
    So in this situation: 90 and other factors 1.44 lost and apparently this is not so bad.
    The aircraft is at best 4 ++ but not the 5 generation.
  • foma2028 18 October 2015 15: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    The scatter of enterprises was intended to strengthen the ranks of the working class of the outskirts. Only it turned out crookedly. They will build an aircraft factory somewhere in Georgia, and then workers are brought from Russia.

    In the book of O. Samoilovich “Near Sukhoi” the situation with the Tbilisi plant and Su-25 is well described.
    As Samoilovich saw half-empty workshops, and to the question where did people hear in response: They are harvesting grapes in personal subsidiary plots. And the build quality of the Su-25, when due to the violated technology, the Su-25 turned over on their backs in flight. When they complained, then Shevarnadze fanned a whole scandal, they say they are digging under the Georgian proletariat.
  • Yak28 18 October 2015 15: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, it’s bad that only Su is developing a 5th generation airplane here, there’s nothing to choose, what’s dry and will do it, but it’s not good.
  • Falcon5555 18 October 2015 15: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    About 1.44 - enough common sense and one glance at him to understand everything about his "stealth." As one could understand from the press, MiG in the 90s fell under the Yeltsin family and began to earn money for leadership on dubious secondary contracts, and, as we see, it practically stopped normal work. Sukhoi was considered to be unpromising in the market and therefore avoided falling into the hands of jerkers. As a result, Sukhoi-Poghosyan made new types of planes, as if baking pies, and managed to produce them in Siberia (!) And in the Far East (!) And sell them hundreds and thousands abroad, but Mig did not design, did not produce and did not sell nothing but some rare exceptions, such as a demonstration of this ridiculous 1.44 or a sale of the 29s modification and a scandalous return from Algeria, but these exceptions more likely confirm the rule. Is there still a MiG? ..
    1. tomket 18 October 2015 21: 29 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Falcon5555
      . As a result, Sukhoi-Poghosyan made new types of aircraft, as if baking pies, and managed to produce them in Siberia (!) And in the Far East (!) And sell them hundreds and thousands abroad

      Well, well ... you say yes, don’t speak up .... otherwise it’s pies and the bill has gone for thousands. All that Pogosyan sells is a refinement of the Soviet backlog.
      1. Falcon5555 18 October 2015 23: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, I quickly counted my hand, and it seems that only half a thousand are exported, but taking into account outdated data on China. This is still a lot. But the Soviet backlog is a vague concept. If the front horizontal plumage, the controlled nozzles, the fat man of the 34th, the reverse stratiformity of the wing and the PAK stealth are considered Soviet groundwork (most likely these ideas have been studied in theory for a long time), then anything can be declared to them. And MiG should have had it all, if it was a Soviet backlog. Why didn’t he use it?
  • TOR2 18 October 2015 15: 57 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In secret, I always hoped that 1.44 would go into the series. The stealth problem MIG engineers tried to solve it in a slightly different way. To hide the aircraft in flight, the hull was equipped with a radio-absorbing coating, which had an uneven surface, which made the device less noticeable for enemy radars. How effective will be the placement of all weapons in the middle of the case you need to look at in practice, since there is a prototype.
    Read more at: http://avia.pro/blog/mig-144
    1. Falcon5555 18 October 2015 16: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Ask yourself the question: “If some kind of magical radar absorbing paint, even or uneven, simple or working with some extra hand passes, dousing with holy water before starting, etc., exists, what prevents it from painting other planes: T-50, F-22, F-35, conventional Su, Migi-29, F-15, F-16? " Why do ordinary ones seem to not paint anything like that? And if everyone paints, then painted airplanes of a licked radio-invisible shape will be more invisible than painted ordinary ones, will they? Thus, 1.44 will be more noticeable than his opponent F-22 or F-35, and therefore 1.44 will lose the air battle with them, right. And you read about the F-22 and F-35 - they are licked so that not a single notch or bumps on the body. Of course, they paint with something, but this is just one of the measures.
    2. Falcon 18 October 2015 16: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: TOR2
      To hide the aircraft in flight, the hull was equipped with a radar absorbing coating.


      Such coverage on all modern aircraft ...

      Including the Su-35 and Mig-35
  • Ze Kot 18 October 2015 16: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "be inconspicuous in the radar and infrared ranges,"

    I wonder how? The air intakes are open from below and there is no room for the internal arrangement of weapons, under the wings there are attachment points ... What is stealth?
    1. mosquit 18 October 2015 20: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The question is rhetorical! hi
  • lazy 18 October 2015 16: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, another "cry of Yaroslavovna", about a unique plane stabbed with the "evil" Pogosyan. it’s already easy to see from the picture that its forms are the forms of Rafal and Typhoon of 4th generation fighters, with that arrangement of air intakes, where is the place for internal weapon compartments? And even before the t-50 Sukhoi, on an initiative basis, the money received from foreign contracts constantly improved the Su-27 giving new modifications to the mountain (which may not always be good), improved production. (Now, if you are not too lazy, the photo report from the factories where they make a moment and where do they make sou in comparison), Mig also had foreign contracts, and "where is the money Zin"? now while there is money from the Indian contract, migrants need to make 5th generation lphi, unless of course they have not lost the team yet.
  • cherkas.oe 18 October 2015 16: 41 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Some kind of nonsense, not an article. There wasn’t even a hundred percent of what was listed in the Wishlist of this opus in that pipelac, which the Migovites had whipped up to participate in the Derban of state funds, especially the 8th tone in the internal compartments. I think this piece of shame Migovskogo KB.
  • marshes 18 October 2015 16: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    By the way, I wanted to ask, not long ago there was infa that in Russia the last regiment that used the MIG-29, switched to the Su-30 SM, is it?
    If so, a picture looms. KB MIG-grandfather Kondraty is selected. And now KB is trying to interest the MIG-1.44 scheme.
    Of course, heavy multifunctionals are preferable, due to the size of territories and are economically profitable. Even in our KZ it is advisable to purchase SU-30SM, 35.
    But here is the question with the LFI, or the short-range aircraft is still open.
    Perhaps the Yak-130, in the future will replace the Su-25, the sighting system, and the MIG-29-installation of engines with afterburner like the Chinese counterpart.
    Here is a picture ...
    1. tomket 18 October 2015 21: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: marshes
      RF, the last regiment that used the MIG-29, switched to the Su-30 SM, right?

      The regiment in Kursk flew and will fly. Plus, the air group at the Kuz passes to the MiG-29. So do not read Soviet newspapers at breakfast.
  • iliitchitch 18 October 2015 20: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: bmw
    I'm certainly not special in aviation, but the trend is obvious. Corporate interests in our country have become higher than the interests of the state and national security. The merger of different design bureau under the roof of the UAC all the same went to the detriment. They are money and money in Africa. Management in the trash.


    Get out, excuse me, not in the subject, BUT! And our planes are good. Those are not fu fifteenth. Catch up and dunk. Buns will be hauling elsewhere, exceptional.
  • mosquit 18 October 2015 20: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In general, in the Mikoyan Design Bureau, the "wilting" of scientific thought since the late 70s ...
    The best is Mig 21, 25 (31) ...
    Mig23 / 27 series failed ...
    Mig-29 (like Su-27) is a layout scheme from SibNIA ... And Sukhoi realized it brilliantly, albeit from the second attempt (T-10 / T10S) ...
    Sukhoi Design Bureau developed in many ways - fighters, e-bombers, bombers, attack aircraft, strategists ("weaving" ...)
    But the Tu-160 has “roots” from the Sukhoi Design Bureau ...
    I don’t understand such a transformation, as Yak - neither a citizen nor military aircraft, and Mig - just regress ...
    We live on! drinks
    1. tomket 18 October 2015 21: 23 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: mosquit
      Mig23 / 27 series failed ...

      How is this sorry MiG-27 unsuccessful ??? Or MiG-23 MLD ??? So that after the advent of the 4 generation, interest in them disappeared? Or the fact that they drank 27 because of far-fetched prepositions in 92? However, like the Su-17. And what is not successful MiG-29? That they cut off the export potential by disrupting contracts with Iran under Yeltsin to please the United States? And what is the failure of the prototype 1.44? The aerodynamic design is quite successful and viable, as shown by Eurofighter. Please do not carry nonsense.
      1. mosquit 19 October 2015 08: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Mig-23, like a fighter, in my subjective opinionfailed LA ...
        MiG-27, a necessary measure, the Su-17 was more effective ...

        In total, the regiment received 43 MiG-27s - more than the regular number of 40 vehicles (12 in each of the three squadrons and four more in the command line) ....

        The first ten MiG-27s were assembled in the TEH regiment along with the factory brigade, the rest by their own forces ..
        Aircraft presented a lot of surprises, being frankly raw even for the installation party. In practice, regimental acceptance replaced factory military envoys and technical control: MRK-ZOM did not work on three aircraft, the pipelines of four cars had abrasions and touches on the frame, the main wheels were improperly assembled on seven, the lanterns did not close, and the generators were idle on nine. Self-propelled guns was deregulated on all without exception the MiG-27!


        Cracks in welding the tank compartment No.2, destruction of the pressure plastic flaps of the wing and crest parts were frequent along the glider; cracks in welding of the titanium tail coca of the fuselage were encountered. There were failures of the units and leaks in the hydraulic system. The largest number of defects was caused by the fuel system, where the wing caissons were leaking frequently for fastening panels, fuselage tanks and pipe joints, a signal of which were noticeable dirty leaks of kerosene. The parachute failed to release due to jamming of the kinematics of the valves, the MRK-30M refused, but the massive one-sided wear of the tires of the main wheels became a real scourge - it did its job, when landing the wheels touched the concrete with the outer "cheek" and were worn on the side after a couple of dozen landings.

        For the R-29B-300 engine, 27 malfunctions were recorded in the first two years of operation of the MiG-157 (only 4,4% of comments on the aircraft as a whole), 11 of them happened during the flight. The largest number of defects related to the oil system, and in half of the cases it remained operational, and the chip indicator in oil junked. The destruction of the air bypass blades due to cracks was more serious, and the caustic oil VNI-INP-50-1-4F caused problems in operation. At the same time, the “human factor” caused the most serious consequences: 20 engines in the shelves had to be replaced “for lack of sense” - due to the ingress of all debris and mittens, covers and caps forgotten in the air intakes (as the guilty justified, “it pulls into it putting something is convenient and at hand ").

        The data on the reliability of the MiG-27 electrical equipment were indicative: a flight failure occurred at 282,5 hours of flight, a malfunction on the ground - at 45,2 hours of operation, which was three to four times higher than the performance of similar MiG-23M systems at the beginning of its service - there are failures accounted for only 80 and 10,3 hours, respectively. However, the operating time did not reach the general standards of 1200 and 60 hours, which was explainable at the stage of trial operation (over time, the defects were “scooped out” and the situation improved significantly).


        Most of all, the MiG-27’s preparation time was affected by the lengthy check of the systems under current, which took half an hour before departure, and the large number of checks with special control equipment, which was attached “in bulk” and had to be carried from aircraft to aircraft.
      2. mosquit 19 October 2015 08: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Farther ...
        A whole heap of claims was caused by the state of affairs in armaments - a lot of complaints were filed for holder failures, malfunctions of control circuits and fittings, but the issue of equipping the aircraft with ammunition remained especially flawed. The holders themselves had an imperfect design and did not meet the requirements of unification - different types of bombs, blocks and launching devices required an “individual approach” with rearrangement of stops and preparation of locks. Ammunition feeders were extremely uncomfortable, heavy and unreliable. For sets of rockets, blocks and bombs of various calibers, their own sets of lodgements were used, rearranged for each loading option with fitting and unscrewing a dozen bolts, and their lodgements were intended for different places of suspension. Bulky "carts" with a hydraulic lift really could not be rolled up under the plane (the landing gear prevented), because of which the winch cables went obliquely, threatening to break down the bomb.


        Repost of the article I think is not appropriate. Who cares - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig27.html
      3. mosquit 19 October 2015 08: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        And what is not successful MiG-29?

        I mentioned Mig-29 and Su-27 in the context of implementing the concept from SibNIA, as an example of the impoverishment of ideas in the design bureau (and not only in the Mikoyan design bureau) ..

        The fact that the Mig-29 is an unsuccessful aircraft - I did not say ...
        Quote: mosquit
        Mig-29 (like Su-27) is a layout scheme from SibNIA ... And Sukhoi realized it brilliantly, albeit from the second attempt (T-10 / T10S) ...


        Agree that the potential of the Su-27 is realized and is being implemented very well, given the beginning of the program, this is the 70s of the last century.
      4. mosquit 19 October 2015 08: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, in the continuation of the topic of ideas ...
        For example, PAK / FA is a continuation of the same concept - a midplane with an integrated fuselage and 2 spaced engine nacelles.
        If the Mig-29 / Su-27 implementations - in the space between the engine nacelles, the ammunition was located on the pylons and is open, then the PAK / FA, due to the greater separation of the engines from the longitudinal axis and the displacement of the cockpit down vertically, managed to place an arms compartment between the engines. .. This is purely subjective ...
        Let's say vulgarly, the PAK / FA scheme, this is a “flattened” Su-27 scheme, as the implementation of a set of measures to reduce the EPR ... hi
  • Zaurbek 18 October 2015 21: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Mig 23 MLD was very successful, there were complaints about the review from the cockpit. Options were proposed with a new radar, engine. But the series did not go. Mig 27 is a controversial option, in terms of security and extra weight in the form of a wing folding mechanism. In terms of armament, it was quite advanced, there were complaints about the review from the cockpit. A successful scheme 1.44 was implemented by the Chinese, Eurofighter, Rafal. When we bring to mind 1.44, we would get an analogue of Raphael, those half-fifth generation.
    1. mosquit 19 October 2015 08: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      A successful scheme 1.44 was implemented by the Chinese, Eurofighter, Rafal. When we bring to mind 1.44, we would get an analogue of Raphael, those half-fifth generation.


      Russian Aerospace Forces do not need such "crafts".

      PS. All the same, marketing is doing its job laughing
      Quote: Zaurbek
      half-fifth generation.
  • 19max70 19 October 2015 05: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Our officials yesterday, today, tomorrow, as they sat on the kickbacks, will continue to sit. It’s time to return the article to the Criminal Code for theft on a large and especially large scale and that the article be firing. am
  • Kir1984 19 October 2015 08: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Sorry KB.
    MiGs definitely drove in the air wars from the 50s to the 80s, albeit with varying success.
    This thing could also show the class, bring it to mind ...
    I don’t think that the era of twinks is over; they still have to show themselves. Although today drying more and more shine. In Syria, too, Ch. arr. they are. But after all, anything happens ... At one time, the Bell company in the USA was also on the verge of bankruptcy, and then they filmed the hit cobra, and it was useful to our pilots, and not only ours. I will hope that something similar happens with the flashes. The guys will suddenly dawn, they will make a breakthrough, and everyone will say VAAAAAU ... in different languages)))
    1. lazy 19 October 2015 16: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Migu urgently need to develop a 5-generation lfi, counting on exports, there are not many competitors f-35 and Chinese. While the niche is relatively free, otherwise the crackers will get the light fighter project out of zagashnik, they will develop it on their own initiative, and again the “tops” will be to blame))) no, really, while Su is busy with the heavy fighter, and f-35 looks like an ugly duckling master this sector by offering a radically new product, rather than another variation of the mig-29
  • Engineer 19 October 2015 09: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    1.44 - a demonstrator, this is not a combat aircraft, without weapons, without a new engine then, somehow it is not clear how to compare it with an F-22 combat aircraft. Now, if the program had not been closed and the entire test cycle had been carried out, then it would have been possible to compare. And so it is impossible to compare the capabilities on paper and the capabilities of a real aircraft.
  • leon1204id 19 October 2015 21: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    RSK MIG is more likely alive than dead. Read the interview with S.S. Korotkov.
    http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/ru/novosti/smi-o-nas/487-mig-mezhdu-slukhom-i-bu
    dushchim
    http://nation-news.ru/146603-mig-pristupil-k-razrabotke-legkogo-istrebitelya-5-g
    o-pokoleniya
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2300532
    http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/meropriyatiya/na_maks_2015_pokazhut_naturnyy_obraze
    ts_proekta_samoleta_5_pokoleniya_mig /
    There are plans to create a lightweight PAK FA and PAK DP. Gryznya is everywhere. But they have enough gunpowder to roll out the current sample, contrary to the instructions from above. This distinguishes the great from the creative. Good luck to the great. smile yes
  • Dzafdet 28 September 2018 13: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: adept666
    then civil aviation is in complete stagnation and decline. Superjet is not an example, but an exception. Let's see what happens with MS. Ilyushin, even in difficult times, at the very least, but itched, and now silence. Maybe I'm wrong, explain if not difficult.

    And what to explain? The collapse of the USSR completely killed civil aviation in the Russian Federation. If the military commander of the USSR tried by all means to compete with counterparts from abroad, because she met them in a real battle (and often won), then the civilian existed in greenhouse conditions, you won’t struggle for efficiency / environmental friendliness / comfort or optimize production and technological effectiveness, but I don’t say anything about saving costs (a rotor in Ukraine, a compressor in the Russian Federation, electronics in Belarus, they put it all together in Uzbekistan), where is it really worth saving? Even what was delivered abroad and even what money (and often fraternal help) really did not take into account the cost of the product and the price was molded from a flashlight. After the collapse of the union, it turned out that civilian aircraft at once became international, duties and customs appeared (which, taking into account production costs and distances, increased the price for units), add the fact that the production of parts has become international, but the rotor is made in Ukraine and nuts to it in the Russian Federation, metal and alloy alloys in Kazakhstan, add all this and calculate the cost of production. And then the classic of the genre: we entered the market (already shared by the capitalists) with an unrealistically expensive product that is absolutely not competitive in its performance characteristics. And if the military initially competitive was able to bite part of the market, and then it was not just that, then the citizen with such a start simply had no chance. Yes, and now notice the citizen is mainly driven by military men, because they have modern technology and money ...


    In our USSR, all civilian aircraft were made from unsuccessful bombers. Hence the result. Neither convenience, nor comfort, nor economy ..