Jump to content

MiG 1.44 Returns


Scolopax
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The flanker does that just fine.

 

6335_zpsae0cc740.jpg

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the PAK-FA, there was one that was supposedly official (based off of the accuracy, it was);

 

PAK-FA-NPO-Saturn-1S.jpg

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...