Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2018, 16:50
by mixelflick
Cancelled as the Soviet Union crumbled, does anyone here think it would have been LO? I don't understand much about what constitutes stealth (although I've heard shape, shape, shape) and this thing's shape doesn't look very stealthy to me..

Opinions?

It looks fast as hell, apparently uses internal weapons carriage and I'd imagine fairly maneuverable. Give where the SU-57 is right now, I think it'd make more sense to develop the I.44. They could scale it down, using only a single engine and refine it for the strike fighter role. I dunno, just really like the look of it. Apparently, so did the Chinese when developing the J-20, LOL..

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2018, 09:34
by collimatrix
All of the MFI submissions had some stealth built in, but I agree in the case of the MiG submission that this would have been limited. Probably along the lines of what the Rafale and Typhoon do; RAM where it really counts, and modest design features to limit the largest radar returns, but aerodynamic considerations are the priority.

The Yakovlev design bureau's MFI design showed a lot more careful stealth shaping:

Image

MiG 1.44 would have been broadly comparable to the eurocanards in overall technology, IMO. That said, there were some differences. The thing was gigantic and very heavy. The demonstrator was 18 metric tons empty, which is quite a bit more than any of the eurocanards and only a hair less than the Raptor. Had it been fully developed I think it would have been in the same weight class as the Raptor.

It would have needed some mighty engines to be competitive. Alas, the design specifics of obscure, cancelled engine designs of the late Soviet Union is a painfully obscure topic and I haven't found much on the original AL-41 engine, which is not the same AL-41 as the uprated AL-31.

In terms of turbine inlet temperature and overall pressure ratio, the Soviets had closed the gap with the West by the very end of the Cold War. That would suggest that their very best engines (AL-31, RD-33, R-79 and NK-32) were basically competitive with contemporary Western offerings in terms of power density and efficiency. The cobra maneuver shows that they had resistance to distorted airflow as well, which had been a problem with their previous generation of engines. However, they were miles behind in terms of engine life. Also, most of the Soviet fighter fleet consisted of older models.

There were some close-up shots of the original MiG 1.44 prototype when it got dragged out to an airshow a few years ago. The designer's priorities were... interesting. The air intakes were still boxy 2D variable ramp designs. Soviet and Western designers both were big on this design for a while, but Western designers ditched it after the F-15. The 2D box inlets give good performance at high mach numbers, but they're heavy, have a lot of moving parts, and a gigantic radar signature from all the interior right angles. From the F-16 onwards, Western fighter designers had uniformly decided that they were not worth the bother.

Interestingly the SU-57 also has variable geometry air intakes, although of a new design that looks like it addresses the complexity and RCS concerns at least somewhat. The retention of variable geometry air intakes may indicate that the Russians favor a high top dash speed for their fighters. But given the temperature resistance of current RAM, it seems unlikely that high mach flight could be sustained for long.

If you looked closely you could also see that there were control surfaces everywhere on the MiG 1.44. The hydraulic system must have been astonishingly complex. There were articulated controls even on the little ventral fins. I suspect MiG 1.44 was controllable to a higher angle of attack than the eurocanards are. The vertical tails are also quite some distance out and are mounted on little booms. This configuration was tested in a wind tunnel for the IAI Lavi and found to give excellent high-alpha performance, but it was ditched because it's rather heavy and draggy.

Primary air-to-air armament was supposed to be a folding-fin model of the R-77 (AA-12 Adder). Probably a GsH-301 and some R-73s with a helmet mounted display; as far as I know the Soviets were quite happy with these secondary weapons. I don't know anything about the plane's proposed electronic fit. I'm not sure where the internal weapons bay was supposed to be. There were a bunch of related MiG canard-delta concepts, and maybe some didn't have bays? Or maybe the demonstrator just lacked them? I'm really not sure. In any case, the bays probably would have been small.

On the whole, it would have been a pretty mean machine, at least in the pure A2A role. On the other hand, it was also a large and complex machine. I doubt that a hypothetical late-surviving Soviet Union could have afforded them in large numbers.


Edit: I think a smaller, single-engine version was out of the question. Soviet leadership at the time was heavily against single-engine combat aircraft.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2018, 11:21
by hornetfinn
collimatrix wrote:Edit: I think a smaller, single-engine version was out of the question. Soviet leadership at the time was heavily against single-engine combat aircraft.


I think it would've also been very difficult for Soviet Union to develop such an aircraft with even remotely comparable electronics fit to Western fighters. MiG-29 was clearly inferior in that regard to contemporary Western fighters. Su-27 is a huge fighter aircraft that can carry more capable electronics and avionics systems, but even it was at disadvantage in many ways compared even to much smaller Western fighters.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2018, 14:22
by mixelflick
collimatrix wrote:All of the MFI submissions had some stealth built in, but I agree in the case of the MiG submission that this would have been limited. Probably along the lines of what the Rafale and Typhoon do; RAM where it really counts, and modest design features to limit the largest radar returns, but aerodynamic considerations are the priority.

The Yakovlev design bureau's MFI design showed a lot more careful stealth shaping:

Image

MiG 1.44 would have been broadly comparable to the eurocanards in overall technology, IMO. That said, there were some differences. The thing was gigantic and very heavy. The demonstrator was 18 metric tons empty, which is quite a bit more than any of the eurocanards and only a hair less than the Raptor. Had it been fully developed I think it would have been in the same weight class as the Raptor.

It would have needed some mighty engines to be competitive. Alas, the design specifics of obscure, cancelled engine designs of the late Soviet Union is a painfully obscure topic and I haven't found much on the original AL-41 engine, which is not the same AL-41 as the uprated AL-31.

In terms of turbine inlet temperature and overall pressure ratio, the Soviets had closed the gap with the West by the very end of the Cold War. That would suggest that their very best engines (AL-31, RD-33, R-79 and NK-32) were basically competitive with contemporary Western offerings in terms of power density and efficiency. The cobra maneuver shows that they had resistance to distorted airflow as well, which had been a problem with their previous generation of engines. However, they were miles behind in terms of engine life. Also, most of the Soviet fighter fleet consisted of older models.

There were some close-up shots of the original MiG 1.44 prototype when it got dragged out to an airshow a few years ago. The designer's priorities were... interesting. The air intakes were still boxy 2D variable ramp designs. Soviet and Western designers both were big on this design for a while, but Western designers ditched it after the F-15. The 2D box inlets give good performance at high mach numbers, but they're heavy, have a lot of moving parts, and a gigantic radar signature from all the interior right angles. From the F-16 onwards, Western fighter designers had uniformly decided that they were not worth the bother.

Interestingly the SU-57 also has variable geometry air intakes, although of a new design that looks like it addresses the complexity and RCS concerns at least somewhat. The retention of variable geometry air intakes may indicate that the Russians favor a high top dash speed for their fighters. But given the temperature resistance of current RAM, it seems unlikely that high mach flight could be sustained for long.

If you looked closely you could also see that there were control surfaces everywhere on the MiG 1.44. The hydraulic system must have been astonishingly complex. There were articulated controls even on the little ventral fins. I suspect MiG 1.44 was controllable to a higher angle of attack than the eurocanards are. The vertical tails are also quite some distance out and are mounted on little booms. This configuration was tested in a wind tunnel for the IAI Lavi and found to give excellent high-alpha performance, but it was ditched because it's rather heavy and draggy.

Primary air-to-air armament was supposed to be a folding-fin model of the R-77 (AA-12 Adder). Probably a GsH-301 and some R-73s with a helmet mounted display; as far as I know the Soviets were quite happy with these secondary weapons. I don't know anything about the plane's proposed electronic fit. I'm not sure where the internal weapons bay was supposed to be. There were a bunch of related MiG canard-delta concepts, and maybe some didn't have bays? Or maybe the demonstrator just lacked them? I'm really not sure. In any case, the bays probably would have been small.

On the whole, it would have been a pretty mean machine, at least in the pure A2A role. On the other hand, it was also a large and complex machine. I doubt that a hypothetical late-surviving Soviet Union could have afforded them in large numbers.


Edit: I think a smaller, single-engine version was out of the question. Soviet leadership at the time was heavily against single-engine combat aircraft.


Best analysis of the Mig I.44 I've ever seen. Thank you!!!

I wasn't aware it had that many control surfaces. Undoubtedly, this was their penchant for "super maneuverability". One would think they would design it to be at least as maneuverable as the Flanker. Some RCS reduction beats none, and given what they were working with... yeah I suppose that was the objective, not full up VLO...

It's the engines though, that would have let her down (as with the SU-57). As you said, the I.44 was an absolute heavyweight, and given they don't have the engines now for super-crusie... speaks to the aircraft being woefully under-powered.

It would have been interesting to see how Western designers would have modified the design. Whatever the case, beautiful bird!!!

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2018, 00:50
by collimatrix
The MiG 1.44 was put on static display at MAKS 2015. As far as I know, this was just to show it off to the public for the first time. There was no talk of resurrecting the program or anything like that.

Image

You can see most of the control surfaces in this picture. Each wing has a flap and an aileron. There are also leading edge slats, but you can't see them in this shot. There are also little elevators in the space between the engines and the tail stingers, and you can see the rudders on the slightly canted vertical tails and on the ventral fins. The canards are all-moving.

Image

You can see the leading-edge devices on the wings in this picture, the dogteeth on the canards, and the chine that the canards were attached to. The underside of the nose was very flat. That air intake design is straight out of the 1970s. The influence of the Fighter Mafia in the USA and NATO was such that after the F-15 and Tornado these 2D variable geometry designs were considered obsolete. Clearly, the Soviets felt differently.

You can also see why I'm puzzled about the claim of an internal weapons bay. Exactly where is that supposed to live? The belly is entirely taken up with air intake and landing gear. Perhaps it was omitted on the demonstrator? In any case, the internal bays would have been small, although the R-77 with folding fins would have been a very compact missile, so the 1.44 would have been able to carry a basic A2A load internally on even a very small bay.

There are more pictures here and here.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 11:46
by secretprojects
Interesting analysis of the MiG 1.44, thanks.

The origins of the configuration lie in TsAGI (Soviet equivalent of NASA) studies. Significant studies were done on FSW (somewhat X-29 inspired) and delta canard (somewhat HIMAT inspired) layouts concentrating on supermanouverability and high-alpha capability. TsAGI recommended the HIMAT-inspired, twin vertical tail, canard delta, statically unstable configuration.

The Soviet Air Force was conscious that the MiG-29 and Su-27 were quite a bit behind their US counterparts in timing, so intended to start work immediately on their next generation replacements and try to match the US ATF in timing. You also have to remember that the MFI program (also I-90 or 'Fighter for the 90s') was started in 1983. In 1983, even the US wasn't sure if a stealth air-air fighter was possible - the early targets for ATF RCS were reasonably low from head-on but not all-aspect VLO - this was added in later once it became clear it was achievable.

In 1983 Mikoyan was largely finished with the Mig-31 and MiG-29 development and keen for new work. Sukhoi were a few years behind and still hard at work on finalising the Su-27 redesign, but also extremely happy with how that fighter was shaping up. They believed that the Su-27 airframe had a lot of development potential, and were not convinced of an urgent need for a "nineties fighter".

Initially there were plans to simultaneously develop an lightweight fighter, LFI, but an attempt to control costs, it was shelved in favour of the MFI. It was thought that the technical solutions (engines, avionics, etc) developed for MFI could be transferred to a later LFI, potentially even including the aerodynamic configuration scaled down.

The requirements for MFI were, in this order, the "3 S" - Supercruise, Supermanouverability and Stealth. Top speeds of Mach 2.5-2.6 and cruise speeds of Mach 1.4-1.6 were required, plus extreme post-stall maneuverability.

An assumption was made at the design phase that stealth would be achievable via radar absorbent coatings, internal weapons bays, 2D engine nozzles and engine ducts hiding the engine compressors, perhaps also the plasma stealth technology intended for the Meterorit cruise missile intake, and so initial design concentrated on the high speed and high alpha requirements. RCS reduction through e.g. alignment was not considered in the design and may not have been a known technique.The 2D horizontal ventral intake and its location was great for high-alpha, but would have been redesigned to a vertical wedge shape for the 1.42 with supposedly lower RCS.

Lots of wind tunnel tests were done on the basic configuration and model drop tests showed that the MFI configuration possessed excellent high-alpha stability to 60 deg.

Mikoyan 'won' the MFI competition in 1986 against lukewarm competition (Sukhoi didn't really try very hard, Yakovlev was always a long shot). The chief designer assigned was former test pilot and (from 1970) MiG-23/MiG-27 chief designer, Grigory Sedov. It's been suggested to me that the MFI kind of got handed to Mikoyan's "B team" - not sure how accurate this is, but it seems at least plausible.

Lyulka got assigned the Al-41F engine, NIIP/Phazotron the N-014 radar (at this stage intended as a 2nd generation passive phased array radar) in 1986. The Al-41F was ambitious, with greater than 10:1 thrust:weight ratio, supercruise and variable bypass. It was significantly larger in diameter than AL-31F but roughly the same weight and much higher thrust (18,000kg)

By 1989 Mikoyan were finalising the design and beginning construction of the 1.44. This was intended as an aerodynamic demonstrator for the 1.42, and its relationship to the planned 1.42 was more akin perhaps to the BAe EAP / Eurofighter or YF-22 / F-22.

Unfortunately (or fortunately perhaps), the breakup of the Soviet Union hit the 1.42 program hard. Aside from the obvious funding crisis, crucial components were under development across the Soviet Union, in what were now separate countries. Funding for the AL-41F was also hit, though Lyulka managed to flight test a prototype engine in a MiG-25 testbed, and eventually supplied 2 working engines to install in the 1.44. The 2D nozzles proved too difficult to get to work with the materials available so a 3D vectoring nozzle was substituted, at least for the 1.44 and possibly 1.42 as well, and the prototype engines had a very limited lifespan.

Mikoyan continued work as best they could on the 1.44 despite lack of funds and in 1994 took the prototype outside for photos with the intention of publicizing the design at an airshow. They were prevented by Russian AF security concerns, as nominally 1.42 was still Russia's next fighter plane if they got enough money to complete it. I actually received a verbal description of the 1.44 at Farnborough 1994 from a contact who claimed to have seen it which proved accurate in retrospect, and Piotr Butowski started drawing suspiciously accurate 3 views of the 1.44 in 1994, leading me to the belief that someone from Mikoyan showed one or more of the 1994 publicity photos to selected journalists.

When Sukhoi flew their S-37 Berkut in 1997, Mikoyan made a concerted effort to seem relevant by completing 1.44 enough that it could fly. It only flew twice, in 2000. It was a shell, still missing some fairly important components, and despite Mikoyan's best efforts to talk it up, the 8-10 year delay in its first flight meant it was essentially obsolete.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 15:15
by mixelflick
mixelflick wrote:
collimatrix wrote:All of the MFI submissions had some stealth built in, but I agree in the case of the MiG submission that this would have been limited. Probably along the lines of what the Rafale and Typhoon do; RAM where it really counts, and modest design features to limit the largest radar returns, but aerodynamic considerations are the priority.

The Yakovlev design bureau's MFI design showed a lot more careful stealth shaping:

Image


Yak would have been a big longshot, but I must say.... that's probably the best design I've seen them put forth. Otherwise, the I.44/1.42 looked to be a fearsome machine. I would have never guessed it capable of AOA up to 60 degrees, nor did I know it was planned to have thrust vectoring.

They would have fallen down in the same areas PAK FA is though: Engines, stealth, sensors and SA. The basic airframe is though (like most Russian fighters), gorgeous IMO. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that. I likewise could never figure out where the internal bays were, LOL. But it's possible they were omitted from the demonstrator model.

I would have loved to been a fly on the wall in the CIA when the satellite images of this bird first showed up. Could have been paranoia on the scale of Foxbat II... :)

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 17:23
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:Give where the SU-57 is right now, I think it'd make more sense to develop the I.44. They could scale it down, using only a single engine and refine it for the strike fighter role. I dunno, just really like the look of it. Apparently, so did the Chinese when developing the J-20, LOL..


The MiG MFI program is just a story of how should not to do. The Chinese based their design on 1.46, just because it was the best they could to buy. PAK-FA design is much more perfect. 1.42 was a step back: refusal of the BWB in the 80s is a failure; a radical RCS reduction of such aerodynamic configuration impossible (example - RCS j-20 bigger, than j-31, despite a much bigger budget of the first); its weight and size did not allow it to use existing engines, and required the development of new ones with fantastic for that times characteristics. And under such huge size, they failed to find space for bays in it (a medium su-57 has enough space for 4 big cruise missiles like Kh-58USHK/Kh-59MK2 or "RVV-SD"/"RVV-BD" and 2 "RVV-MD" within). The only advantage of the MiG MFI - is the speed characteristics, but they are more needed interceptor than a multirole fighter.
Unfortunately the whole program of the MiG MFI demonstrates the degradation of the Mikoyan Design Bureau school in the 80s(

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 19:09
by sferrin
Re. the original AL-41 I *think* this is it:


Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 15:49
by mixelflick
babybat{}.net wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Give where the SU-57 is right now, I think it'd make more sense to develop the I.44. They could scale it down, using only a single engine and refine it for the strike fighter role. I dunno, just really like the look of it. Apparently, so did the Chinese when developing the J-20, LOL..


The MiG MFI program is just a story of how should not to do. The Chinese based their design on 1.46, just because it was the best they could to buy. PAK-FA design is much more perfect. 1.42 was a step back: refusal of the BWB in the 80s is a failure; a radical RCS reduction of such aerodynamic configuration impossible (example - RCS j-20 bigger, than j-31, despite a much bigger budget of the first); its weight and size did not allow it to use existing engines, and required the development of new ones with fantastic for that times characteristics. And under such huge size, they failed to find space for bays in it (a medium su-57 has enough space for 4 big cruise missiles like Kh-58USHK/Kh-59MK2 or "RVV-SD"/"RVV-BD" and 2 "RVV-MD" within). The only advantage of the MiG MFI - is the speed characteristics, but they are more needed interceptor than a multirole fighter.
Unfortunately the whole program of the MiG MFI demonstrates the degradation of the Mikoyan Design Bureau school in the 80s(


Your point about speed is a good one. What are the odds MIG invokes elements of the I.44 when developing the Mig-31 replacement? I'm sure they have some data on how fast it was supposed to go (although I don't see it hitting Mach 4, 5 or flying in outer space (all ridiculous, but that's never stopped Russian claims before).

Also, what is the I.46 and what does BWB stand for?

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 16:29
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Give where the SU-57 is right now, I think it'd make more sense to develop the I.44. They could scale it down, using only a single engine and refine it for the strike fighter role. I dunno, just really like the look of it. Apparently, so did the Chinese when developing the J-20, LOL..


The MiG MFI program is just a story of how should not to do. The Chinese based their design on 1.46, just because it was the best they could to buy. PAK-FA design is much more perfect. 1.42 was a step back: refusal of the BWB in the 80s is a failure; a radical RCS reduction of such aerodynamic configuration impossible (example - RCS j-20 bigger, than j-31, despite a much bigger budget of the first); its weight and size did not allow it to use existing engines, and required the development of new ones with fantastic for that times characteristics. And under such huge size, they failed to find space for bays in it (a medium su-57 has enough space for 4 big cruise missiles like Kh-58USHK/Kh-59MK2 or "RVV-SD"/"RVV-BD" and 2 "RVV-MD" within). The only advantage of the MiG MFI - is the speed characteristics, but they are more needed interceptor than a multirole fighter.
Unfortunately the whole program of the MiG MFI demonstrates the degradation of the Mikoyan Design Bureau school in the 80s(


Your point about speed is a good one. What are the odds MIG invokes elements of the I.44 when developing the Mig-31 replacement? I'm sure they have some data on how fast it was supposed to go (although I don't see it hitting Mach 4, 5 or flying in outer space (all ridiculous, but that's never stopped Russian claims before).

Also, what is the I.46 and what does BWB stand for?


The max speed I've seen listed for the Mig 1.42 was Mach 2.6 in max afterburner. "BWB" is Blended-Wing-Body.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 17:21
by babybat{}.net
mixelflick wrote:Also, what is the I.46 and what does BWB stand for?


"Izdelije 1.46" - further development of MiG MFI
BWB - blended wing body (russian term - "integral aerodynamic configuration")

mixelflick wrote:Your point about speed is a good one. What are the odds MIG invokes elements of the I.44 when developing the Mig-31 replacement? I'm sure they have some data on how fast it was supposed to go (although I don't see it hitting Mach 4, 5 or flying in outer space (all ridiculous, but that's never stopped Russian claims before).


Mikoyan Design Bureau has a large number of soviet developments on interceptors. What comes to mind:
MiG-31M, MiG MFP, MiG MDP, MiG 301, MiG 321.

MiG-31 replacement, 4M-interceptor and Hypersonic interceptor are different projects.
It is difficult to say which of them will be implemented, and who will remain only in the drawings.
But the resumption of work on the themes of the MiG-31 based Kindzal strike system, and the anti-satellite complex Kontakt, leads to the conclusion that the choice will fall on a unified complex - the replacement of the MiG-31 and Tu-22M3. This meets the requirements of the MiG 70.1 interceptor project, that based on T-60S strike complex project.
The appearance of this machine you can easily imagine by looking at its civilian version (MiG 701P). Differences quite a bit.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 20:07
by secretprojects
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.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 06:54
by babybat{}.net
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).


Yes, the design of Sukhoi Bureau is obvious here at first sight) Brought to perfection BWB, while MiG continued to draw "pipes with wings"

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


I heard that some things from the T-60S we can see on the su-34, such as the cockpit, some systems and electronic equipment.
About the cockpit, it may be a legend, but about some of the equipment - that's for sure.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 15:30
by mixelflick
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??

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 20:19
by sferrin
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:

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 17:15
by milosh
I read somewhere MiG-1.44 could change seat angle from 30deg (F-16 like) to 60deg, was prototype really had such seat?

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 18:20
by foxhound_31
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.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 13:58
by mixelflick
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...

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 10:30
by milosh
@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.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 11:45
by mixelflick
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??

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2018, 11:51
by milosh
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.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 01:22
by collimatrix
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.

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 10:36
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 16:54
by foxhound_31
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!

Re: Mig I.44

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 19:24
by babybat{}.net
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.