The MIG41

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

The YF-12 had no trouble firing an AIM-47 Falcon at Mach 3.2.

hey zap, didn't they retire that puppy quite a few years ago?...and back to the topic...I think Russia is blowing smoke up someone's ass, wouldn't be the first time though

reply to post by jimmyx


The YF-12 never went past testing. They fired six missiles, the last at speed. One airframe was destroyed after an engine fire during the testing program.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I take it any ordnance this thing will carry will have to be internally mounted in some kind of weapons bay if indeed she's capable of mach 4+ speeds. Could there not be some major problems both aerodynamically and stability wise in just opening the bay doors at such speeds never mind actually being able to fire of any missiles?

Just spitballing.

reply to post by andy06shake


The YF-12 used semi-recessed bays similar to the F-4 missiles on the fuselage. It's largely a matter of ejecting them far enough down from the airframe that they don't interact with the airflow and come back up into the aircraft.

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


The SR72 is a strike plane and not just for recon.:

"Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour,” said Brad Leland, program manager of hypersonics at Lockheed Martin. “Speed is the next aviation advancement to counter emerging threats in the next several decades. The technology would be a game-changer in theater, similar to how stealth is changing the battlespace today.” - See more at: www.aviationtoday.com...

Source

UxoriousMagnus
an interceptor eh.....well...I guess that would make sense then that the Russians would be making an outdated and useless aircraft as interceptors became obsolete in the 1970's as there was no need to "intercept" bombers anymore with the advent of ICBM's.

That is a very Western view. This is a completely different environment we are talking about. These aircraft are expected to operate between few-and-far-between airbases, probably not in the best condition, and over very large expanses of land. The objective is to prevent incursions and, potentially, attack high-value airborne assets from standoff distances. Remember, as well, that the amount of warning you have in the event of an attack on the mainland portion of a country will be decreased either by stealth (American style with a B-2) or by sheer speed (Russian style with Tu-160) and so response time is extremely important. Furthermore, while the US is relatively isolated from potential enemies by sheer distance and oceans, Russia does not have the same convenience. They have Western European forces on one side, and several significant Eastern Asian states on their borders to the other. While ICBMs would be the preferred method of attack from the US on the other side of the world, they are still very vulnerable to conventional bombers from more local areas.

andy06shake
reply to post by peck420

 

Do you know of the material they have in mind for the skin of the aircraft capable of withstanding the temperatures, velocities and air pressure associated with such speed?

Genuinely curious.

Titanium? I know that when we were building the SR-71 we managed to buy a ton of it from Russia without them realizing we were using it to build a plane to spy on them. I found that historical bit mildly amusing.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I would have thought the airframe would be made of titanium and also parts of the engine. But as to the whole skin of the plane? I imagine that would make her rather a heavy beast. Also I would have thought even titanium would have problems associated with the pressures, temperatures and overall stress factors of mach 4+ travel.

A skin composed of some kind of carbon nanofibers would be much more heat resistant, have a higher over all tensile strength in comparison and i imagine weigh far less.

I doubt the next generation of aircraft will be comprised of more then 30% metal.

An F-22 is approx 61% metal (40% titanium or titanium alloys), and it was designed 17 years ago.

Material advancements have moved forward in leaps and bounds since then.

MystikMushroom

andy06shake
reply to post by peck420

 

Do you know of the material they have in mind for the skin of the aircraft capable of withstanding the temperatures, velocities and air pressure associated with such speed?

Genuinely curious.

Titanium? I know that when we were building the SR-71 we managed to buy a ton of it from Russia without them realizing we were using it to build a plane to spy on them. I found that historical bit mildly amusing.

that is one of my favorite stories about the SR71 as well......awesome

Sammamishman
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

The SR72 is a strike plane and not just for recon.:

"Hypersonic aircraft, coupled with hypersonic missiles, could penetrate denied airspace and strike at nearly any location across a continent in less than an hour,” said Brad Leland, program manager of hypersonics at Lockheed Martin. “Speed is the next aviation advancement to counter emerging threats in the next several decades. The technology would be a game-changer in theater, similar to how stealth is changing the battlespace today.” - See more at: www.aviationtoday.com...

Source

well.....it's a drone first of all.....not really a plane but I hear what you are saying.

Darkpr0

UxoriousMagnus
an interceptor eh.....well...I guess that would make sense then that the Russians would be making an outdated and useless aircraft as interceptors became obsolete in the 1970's as there was no need to "intercept" bombers anymore with the advent of ICBM's.

That is a very Western view. This is a completely different environment we are talking about. These aircraft are expected to operate between few-and-far-between airbases, probably not in the best condition, and over very large expanses of land. The objective is to prevent incursions and, potentially, attack high-value airborne assets from standoff distances. Remember, as well, that the amount of warning you have in the event of an attack on the mainland portion of a country will be decreased either by stealth (American style with a B-2) or by sheer speed (Russian style with Tu-160) and so response time is extremely important. Furthermore, while the US is relatively isolated from potential enemies by sheer distance and oceans, Russia does not have the same convenience. They have Western European forces on one side, and several significant Eastern Asian states on their borders to the other. While ICBMs would be the preferred method of attack from the US on the other side of the world, they are still very vulnerable to conventional bombers from more local areas.

DarkPro....thanks for this insight.....it is the best explanation on this thread so far as to why "they" would want or need such an aircraft.....puts it into perspective.

Thanks again

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


Actually it's optionally manned. It will almost certainly fly completely unmanned eventually but early flights at least will probably be manned.

reply to post by Darkpr0


Russia is pretty vast. The ability to cover large distances quickly is still seen as very important tactically there. High Mach numbers make sense in that context. If it comes to an ICBM exchange, most aircraft are going to be moot anyway because large runways are going to be in short supply. In a limited exchange, the ability to meet an incoming threat while being based somewhere centrally or in the interior has high value.

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

Actually it's optionally manned. It will almost certainly fly completely unmanned eventually but early flights at least will probably be manned.

I know you are a moderator and not trying to pick a fight here but:

Designed to travel as an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) at Mach 6, six times the speed of sound, the SR-72 will go twice the speed of the SR-71, which was retired in the late 1990s.

seems like we are splitting hairs here or you just want the last word.....so

you win....you have the last word

reply to post by RAB

My experience with Russian Bravado, is they usually have a design in mind long before they start to talk about it. Mach 4 is an interesting number, because it the upper limit of lower atmospheric friction coefficients. Just shy of Mach 5 aerodynamics become rather useless, as the compression waves are in the detonation cascade phase. If they were talking about a scram jet design, in the very high altitude domain, then that is another type of bird. More of a spacecraft than an aircraft. As for airframe materials, there is a long roster of suitable materials that would do from say the mid 80's of composite theory, or early 1990's carbon reinforced alloy matrices. Propulsion would probably be plasma based, compressor bypassing with most likely cold hydroxy, through a variable venturi carbon carbon blast can.

The big not so secret secret in aviation circles is the use of so called stealth technology. Just about everyone who works in military aircraft design know that stealth is just a good excuse to up the price of aircraft, and in fact does little to keep aircraft hidden. In fact, older late world war 2 long wave form radar assemblies could pick up the Stealth bomber, it is just that those units were largely phased out for more compact, lower power systems that make up the bulk of today’s radar systems.

Pierre Sprey, a top notch old schooler who worked on the f-16 sums it up pretty well at 6:30 of this video.
www.youtube.com...

I have no doubt that they'll build it, I just don't know why they would build it. Maybe bragging rights, who knows. It won't look anything like the mig 31, and shouldn't be associated with that bird, which was top shelf for the time. There are better places to focus their energy. Excessive speed on conventional platforms is really a counter productive, aside from ferry missions, as a battle strategy for an air superiority fighter.

AX
FTNWO

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


I'm not trying to split hairs, win, or get the last word in. The aircraft will eventually be unmanned but until they are sure it does what they want, when they want, they have the option of a pilot.

The LRS-B is going to be the same. It's going to start out manned and eventually go to unmanned once it's perfected.

I wouldn't put much stock in releases either. A couple of "new" programs have been declassified for "development" over the years, and several of my contacts said "it's about time, that's been flying for years".

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


well the sr-71 was made of titanium right? and i guess that is what they would need for those speeds(didnt sr-72 officaly top out at like mach 3 or 4?) and as far as i know nothing has touched the reccords set by the blackbird so i would assume it would need to be as stong if not stronger then titanium

reply to post by AlphaExray


The thing about using lower frequencies for stealth detection (like VHF or UHF) is that the the resolution of the paint is frequency dependent. Telling me that an airplane is somewhere within that 32 miles of cubic airspace is useful as a search or warning tool, but useless for providing targeting data to a SAM, for example. For targeting data, we need higher-frequencies. And at X-band, we're right back to stealth being a useful tool again. Lower frequencies are also more susceptible to clutter and jamming. It's not as simple as saying, "An OTH radar can detect a stealth aircraft". It is true, but it doesn't tell us what "detect" means.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


The SR-72 is planned for Mach 6.