Mig I.44

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4706
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Oct 2018, 20:19

mixelflick wrote:
secretprojects wrote:The 701 is an interesting design, as it was originally Oleg Samolovich's design for the Sukhoi T-60S bomber (Tu-22M replacement). When he quit Sukhoi and joined Mikoyan it was repurposed as an interceptor to replace the MiG-31, then finally an SST (from where we have the official drawing). The connection between these roles being high speed supersonic cruise...

The Sukhoi T-60S went another direction after Samolovich left, but also failed to reach hardware.


Very interesting...

Where are you getting this information? It's rare (even in the West) to get insight into still born programs like this. I'd imagine it's even harder to do in Russia??


If I had to guess who "Secretprojects" is, he's got LOTS of contacts. :wink:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Oct 2018, 17:15

I read somewhere MiG-1.44 could change seat angle from 30deg (F-16 like) to 60deg, was prototype really had such seat?
Offline

foxhound_31

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2018, 14:40

Unread post10 Oct 2018, 18:20

Hell if I know, I'll be waiting for the answer as well!

But regarding the rest of the plane, I have greatly enjoyed OP's analysis, the MiG 1.44 would have been likely to compete with the Su-35/37 to replace the Su-27 in the Soviet air force of the 2000s as a heavy long range fighter. It's interesting to see that MiG launched itself in that project, while they had always designed lighter, frontline fighters (with the MiG-25/31 being the big exception) when compared to Sukhoi's projects.

And yes, it would have introduce radical changes when compared to earlier Soviet fighters, becoming an "Eurocanard on steroids" instead of a traditionally Soviet plane like everything else by MiG or the Flanker family.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2389
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post11 Oct 2018, 13:58

It is sobering to think that the Mig I.44 was that design bureau's last serious attempt at innovation, given what was known and the technology available at the time. Either the talent or the rubles (perhaps both) left MIG shortly thereafter, because the best we've seen from them since are nothing more than various Mig-29 upgrades.

The Mig-I.44 represented an interesting leap (in some respects) from the Mig-29 and SU-27, while falling down on stealth. The SU-57 may be marginally better as a LO design, but I feel it pays a steep price for pursuing that (literally, the aircraft's sticker price). They wound up with something so complex and expensive it doesn't have a prayer of replacing its current Flanker fleet, and the stealth they paid so dearly for likely won't be enough. Large numbers of F-35's are going to blast a very small number of SU-57's out of the sky, and that's assuming the F-22 isn't in the mix.

BOTTOM LINE

I'll take many more I.44's over a thimble full of SU-57's any day. And I bet that's the exact gamble the Chinese are making with the J-20...
Attachments
Mig I.44 and J-20.jpg
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Oct 2018, 10:30

@mixflick

One reason why MiG 1.44 failed in ex-ussr Russia was price, in late 1990s price was estimated on 70million dollars if I remember correctly. That is similar to domestic Su-57 price if you count inflation, with inflation it is more expensive then Su-57 (60-70millions of two times price of Su-35).

Second reason is engine. MiG 1.44 was build for big AL-41F which no Russian fighter use so no money from export to return investment. Su-57 on other hand have engine which can be easily fitted in Su-30/34/35.

Third reason it wasn't VLO design.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2389
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Oct 2018, 11:45

milosh wrote:@mixflick

One reason why MiG 1.44 failed in ex-ussr Russia was price, in late 1990s price was estimated on 70million dollars if I remember correctly. That is similar to domestic Su-57 price if you count inflation, with inflation it is more expensive then Su-57 (60-70millions of two times price of Su-35).

Second reason is engine. MiG 1.44 was build for big AL-41F which no Russian fighter use so no money from export to return investment. Su-57 on other hand have engine which can be easily fitted in Su-30/34/35.

Third reason it wasn't VLO design.


OK. I knew it wouldn't be cheap, but had no idea it was 70 million (at the time).

Where may I ask did you find that info??
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Oct 2018, 11:51

mixelflick wrote:
milosh wrote:@mixflick

One reason why MiG 1.44 failed in ex-ussr Russia was price, in late 1990s price was estimated on 70million dollars if I remember correctly. That is similar to domestic Su-57 price if you count inflation, with inflation it is more expensive then Su-57 (60-70millions of two times price of Su-35).

Second reason is engine. MiG 1.44 was build for big AL-41F which no Russian fighter use so no money from export to return investment. Su-57 on other hand have engine which can be easily fitted in Su-30/34/35.

Third reason it wasn't VLO design.


OK. I knew it wouldn't be cheap, but had no idea it was 70 million (at the time).

Where may I ask did you find that info??


Uf it was long time ago when I read that but I remember price tag was :shock:

google:
The MiG 1.42 will cost about $70 million, compared to the EF2000's $60 million, the USAF JSF's $24 million, and the F-22's $150 million. Though it will probably never enter service in Russia due to its high price tag and Russia's financial crisis, China and India could supply some of the money to develop it and might be primary customers.
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post16 Oct 2018, 01:22

I'm very skeptical that the J-20 is meaningfully based on the 1.44. It's likely that some Russian aerospace experts were consulted on the design, as the Chinese military aviation industry does this frequently. But I don't think that you can take the 1.44 and turn it into the J-20 while retaining a meaningful percentage of the original design, and I think even proposing that idea betrays a deep ignorance of how fighter aircraft are designed.

The air intakes on the J-20 are side-mounted, while those on the 1.44 were belly-mounted. That's huge. The air intakes of a fighter aircraft are integrated aerodynamically and structurally with the rest of the plane, and need to be designed with the specific requirements of the engines in mind (mass airflow rate, pressure recovery, resistance to distorted flow, etc).

The canards on the J-20 are mounted much further forward than on the 1.44. Again, this doesn't look visually that different, but aerodynamically it's a huge difference. Canard/main wing interactions take a long series of iterative changes to get right. The exact arrangement of the canards and main wing on the SAAB Viggen took an enormous amount of tiny tweaks to get just right such that the canards would delay flow separation at high AOA, but not overly impair the main wing's lift coefficient at low AOA. The funky inverted-double-delta main wing planform is the result of many, many hours of wind-tunnel testing and alternative configurations that got rubbish-binned. And that's on a comparatively simple, non-moving canard on a conventionally stable airframe. Canard/main wing interaction is too fidgety to make such substantial changes without just having to start over.

Oh yeah, and on top of that the J-20 is stealthy.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4584
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post16 Oct 2018, 10:36

The J-20 was not based on the Mig 1.44. Anymore than the F-86 was based on the Mig-15! :shock:


Just one of the countless rumors floating around the internet. That has little to no basis in fact.... :wink:
Offline

foxhound_31

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2018, 14:40

Unread post16 Oct 2018, 16:54

If I'm not mistaken, it's a little bit like the stories about the StG-44 being the model for the AK-47 ; to the untrained eye, the external shapes look more or less the same, but once you gut out the thing, you notice that it's radically different.

However, even if the J-20 is an original design, the J-31 is a completely different beast... I'm eager too see some in service in South Asia and Africa in the next decade!
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post16 Oct 2018, 19:24

It's not clear from where you got information that j-20 is based on 1.44 design (which was only a technology demonstrator)? I met only information about the works based on 1.46 and later j-9 design.
Previous

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests