Scolopax Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Russia's Massive Air Show Will Display The Defunct MiG 1.44 Prototype Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 FTA is full of crap, half-baked propaganda as always. "It is doubtful, however, that Russia can afford yet another fighter" - They have this delusion that the PAK-FA program is screwed, and can't be afforded, because of a change in procurement orders. All prototypes will be in the air by mid to late next year, and one of them is rumored to be a testbed for the Izd.30 engine...while the lot of them will incorporate a stiffer frame among other small improvements. All of this is basically going to plan, and once the initial 12 models are delivered, production will be kicked in. "MiG’s design may aim" - It *will* be smaller, lighter, and less expensive. This has been obvious for decades at this point. Anyway....seeing the 1.44 will be very cool, more so if it makes a flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Very exciting that we finally get a look at this thing. I would be shocked if it's airworthy. I am most curious about the design of the air intakes and the electronics; assuming the prototype had provisions for electronics. A pity that it didn't see production, it would have been a credible contender with the Eurocanards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperComrade Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 God, the comments are stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 There was an air going model up to 04' IIRC. It is possible that she could be brought back, but that's the optimistic view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 Very exciting that we finally get a look at this thing. I would be shocked if it's airworthy. I am most curious about the design of the air intakes and the electronics; assuming the prototype had provisions for electronics. A pity that it didn't see production, it would have been a credible contender with the Eurocanards. It seems the thing was planned with a Phazotron N014 fire control radar which had 3 passive phased-array antenna in order to maximize the field of view. It also was suppose to have a rear-view radar to help guide missiles against trailing aircraft. Reverse fired missiles are mentioned in conjunction with this system. I also see mention of a cannon with traverse and elevation. 5 deg inboard/15 deg outboard. +30/-35 deg elevation This is what Unflown Wings states for the 1.42 which is like the YF-22 to the F-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 God, the comments are stupid It's FTA, the people there read Gawker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted August 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 I also see mention of a cannon with traverse and elevation. 5 deg inboard/15 deg outboard. +30/-35 deg elevation Oh my. How atypical is this for such an aircraft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 Oh my. How atypical is this for such an aircraft? Basically unprecedented since the days of the Boulton Paul Defiant. Fighters don't have flexible armament, and bombers and transports have long since shed theirs (except for a few legacy Soviet designs; they held on to defensive rear guns on bombers way longer than anyone else). The Soviets were into the idea of flexible fighter/attack aircraft; I vaguely recall something about bolt-on gunpods that could be depressed to reduce the amount that the aircraft needed to dive in order to perform strafing runs. I'd seen concept art from the US for something similar, but don't recall anything ever actually being built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 A photogallery. Stealthy my ass! Look at those intakes! They're perfect retroreflectors! The dogteeth on the canards are interesting. I wonder what those do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 This looks like it could have been a good 4th gen fighter alongside the F-16 or Eurocanards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 My thought as well. I'm curious exactly what it offered over a flanker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 getting you mad pussy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 The Flanker already does that. Side note: During my freshman year Russian class, one of the other students asked the professor how to tell a MiG-29 and Su-27. The professor said to remember "Flanker has a wanker." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 The flanker does that just fine. So, to me the curious features of 1.44 are: -Wing-mounted ventral fins very wide of the center. Does anything else have these? On the J-20 the ventral fins are on extensions, and on almost everything else they're on the fuselage. -The dogtooth on the canards. What does that do? -What was going to live in the tail stingers? They're rather reminiscent of SU-47's tail stingers. -Why are the vertical stabs canted outwards? Is it to avoid turbulence from the canards? Is it for RCS reduction? If it is for RCS reduction, why are the intakes so boxy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 Side note: During my freshman year Russian class, one of the other students asked the professor how to tell a MiG-29 and Su-27. What the hell kind of language class you were in? 10 years of speaking English gud and i still cant tell the difference between the T-32 or Pershing or M-26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 It's FTA, the people there read Gawker... FTA is Gawker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted August 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 FTA is Gawker. Oh dear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted August 26, 2015 Report Share Posted August 26, 2015 FTA is Gawker. Case in point ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 MiG developing new lightweight fighter based on 1.44? Who knows; see journalists' failure to correctly interpret and translate statements made about TU-160 production resuming. It would be interesting if true. For one thing, the fulcrum family is underwhelming compared to the mighty flankers, and export sales have so far agreed with me. It would also be the first time in a while that the MiG and Sukhoi fighter designs have not been based on similar aerodynamic studies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted August 29, 2015 Report Share Posted August 29, 2015 Basically they are wrong. It will not be "based" on the 1.44, at all. Rather it will be based on lessons learned from the 1.44 program and design. I still think the early LMFS renders were mot far off. PAK-FA's concept renders were rather close to what it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 Which ones? There was speculative PAK-FA art showing it as everything from an F-22 clone to a 1.44 development to a further development of SU-47 (which is what I would have guessed; who the hell would have thought that Sukhoi would have the resources to develop two completely different fighter designs within such a timeframe on such a budget as Russia can spare?). The mediumweight fighter category will be very crowded indeed if the Russians debut a new design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted August 30, 2015 Report Share Posted August 30, 2015 For the PAK-FA, there was one that was supposedly official (based off of the accuracy, it was); A few other ones got the rear geometry spot on, and everything else far off. There are a few LMFS drawings from a guy at IDF, similar to the T-50, but it probably isn't far off; http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/russia-to-develop-light-class-fighter-jet.56925/ I suspect it will be a MiGified T-50 with one engine...but it could be completely different, I obviously don't know. LostCosmonaut 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.