Projet 701 - the "what could have been" Russian interceptor

The Project 7.01 (Project 701), a heavy and stealthy interceptor intended as a replacement of MiG-31 and MiG-31M, was cancelled in the mid-1980s in favor of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker. It is speculated that both the "MiG-39" 1.42 and much larger 7.01 had similar origins derived from a MiG-31 Foxhound based canard-delta platform.

Global Security

I found this while making my post for the SR-71 vs Mig-31 thread.

Does anyone have any more info on this aircraft?

If it was intended as a true upgrade over the Foxhound that would make it a Mach 3+ stealthy interceptor

I guess it could still be made based off the Mig 1.42 platform much like the F/B-22 could still happen.

What do you guys think?

Thats a Great find, I cant believe they chose a Sukhoi over a MiG I thought MiG were the favourite ... obviously not !



A futher development on this aircraft would have been impressive

Perhaps when the Pak-fa is done they will base it on that airframe with delta wings?

I wish there was more info I could find on this...

Originally posted by American Mad Man

If it was intended as a true upgrade over the Foxhound that would make it a Mach 3+ stealthy interceptor

- Wow indeed AMM.

Personally I don't think there can be any such thing.

The requirements for that kind of speed would IMHO rule out so much (if not all) of the requirements for any genuine stealth ability.

Then there's the issue of what to do with those great big long-range missiles Russia (rightly?) feels the need for.

I suppose they've done it before but IMO it would need something like a stealthy missile firing medium bomber ....a bit like a modern Tu28 but with proper stealth and huge speed.

(which as I say IMO rule each other out pretty much.)

Great points

I think that "stealthy" and stealth are very different. For instance, the SR-71 was stealthy - they tweaked some things like the angle of the vertical stabilizers and added RAM paint.

Of course this does not equate the level of stealth we normally associate (spl?) with a 'stealth' aircraft.

IMHO, when they say stealthy, they are reffering to a reduced RCS through design and RAM coating without compromising the speed of the aircraft.

Of course, if they were to use storage bays, that would produce less drag, so the only problem then would be finding RAM that can withstand the heat generated by Mach 3+ travel.

I keep pics I come across on the web that I find interesting and this is one. Can't remember where I found it though. I remember it just said project 701 and because it was close to other Mig images I assumed it was a Mig. It's a pretty simplistic picture and this is the first time I've actually had a decent look at it. Lot's of volume at the wing root fairing for internal stowage of missles but it doesn't look too stealthy. But then again the russians like plasma stealth. Might have some issues with inertial coupling with such a small tail.


[edit on 22-10-2004 by balrog]

Nice find

It's interesting that the intakes are on top. From what I know (which is admittedly limited) that is usually to dampen a sonic boom to the ground.

Got to agree with you that it doesn't look at all stealthy from the front, which is supposed to be the most stealthy view of the aircraft.

The MiG izdeje 7.01 was a next step to replace the MiG-31 [by the way, one of three final proposals of MiG-31 was a delta shaped high speed stealthy aircraft with no tail surfaces]. You can find pictures at my web:

www.hitechweb.szm.sk/fightersSF02.htm

There were also other proposal in early 90s - the MiG izdeje 3.01, derived from 7.01. But 3.01 is primarily the bomber and 7.01 is a heavy antibomber fighter. Picture at:

www.hitechweb.szm.sk/futurebombers.htm

I will translate some detailed info - hope that will be ready in monday.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Nice find

It's interesting that the intakes are on top. From what I know (which is admittedly limited) that is usually to dampen a sonic boom to the ground.

Got to agree with you that it doesn't look at all stealthy from the front, which is supposed to be the most stealthy view of the aircraft.

Intakes on the top would be absolutely crap for highspeed dogfighting, as the aircraft body would disturb the airflow into the intakes and starve the engines when doing tight climbs or turns. Top mounted intakes are usually to obscure the engine compressor blades from radar sources, as they are one of the biggest causes of a return signal.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Intakes on the top would be absolutely crap for highspeed dogfighting, as the aircraft body would disturb the airflow into the intakes and starve the engines when doing tight climbs or turns. Top mounted intakes are usually to obscure the engine compressor blades from radar sources, as they are one of the biggest causes of a return signal.

- Whoah there. "crap" is waaaaay too strong a language to be talking over this matey.

I know that the idea of 'masking' is often cited as a flaw but there have been several aircraft that have managed just fine with them.

The F107 prototype had upper inlets and worked pretty well and the Heinkel He 162 did too (whatever it's faults - apparantly few in the hands of an experienced pilot - the top mounted jet wasn't one of them....until you had to bail out and the ejector seat malfunctioned!) ......I think you'll find Boeing's (model 818) ideas for the TFX (F111) project also had them.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other is possibly the best way to put it with stealth probably tipping the balance nowadays (but even there clever materials and angles make that less than absolute).

[edit on 23-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Intakes on the top would be absolutely crap for highspeed dogfighting, as the aircraft body would disturb the airflow into the intakes and starve the engines when doing tight climbs or turns. Top mounted intakes are usually to obscure the engine compressor blades from radar sources, as they are one of the biggest causes of a return signal.

You have to remember that this aircraft isn'y a fighter, it's an interceptor, and there for shouldn't be dogfighting anyway.

All it has to do is close the distance between it's self and the bomber it has to take out and fire a missle.

Well put AMM the MiG-31 is often put in a fighter role when be talked about, and it is best remembered that it is an Interceptor not a fighter !

First shortly about MiG-31. At the mid 70s there were four different concepts of "upgraded MiG-25" (what became MiG-31). First hybrid proposal (MiG-25MP, E-155MP or izdeje 518) has a fuselage with engines from MiG-25 and variable geometry wing with slightly modified tail surfaces from MiG-23. The main gear consisted of two four wheels wagons. Second proposal (izdeje 55 or 518-55) was a unique configuration with two seat tandem cockpit and in some aspects looked like todays MiG-31. Third concept was much interesting, because it was tailless stealthy plane with two Tumanskij engines.



For practical realization was selected fourth concept, izdeje 83 or MiG-31-33. Number 33 means, that this weapon system was equipped with anti aircraft missiles R-33.



At the mid 80s in OKB MiG started to think about replacement of MiG-31. Especially for this it was made a program MDP (Mnogofunkcionalnyj Dalnyj Pjerechvatchik) with concept proposal MiG izdeje 7.01. First information came to public in 1993, when the engineers started to talk about civilian version 7.01P. Plane was 30 meters long, 7,2 m high with 19 m wingspan and able to cruise at Mach 2,2 in altitude 17 km to 7000 - 11 000 km. It was planned to use beyond visual range rockets R-37 and KS-172. Project was terminated in 1991 due to lack of funding. Engines atop the fuselage does not eliminate the sonic boom. Shockwave is formed at the front part of the plane and depends more on the shape of the fuselage than on engines above or under the centerline. It is more effective on subsonic aircrafts where the tail parts can shade stabilised sound wave (engine noise, not supersonic shockwave) and it�s bottom part reflect above.



The idea that MiG 1.44 and MiG 7.01 had the same basis is not very correct. Yes, they are delta shaped with cannard tail surfaces, but it should be told about many modern projects from Russia. For example Yakovlev MFI and Suchoj S-37 (light one engine fighter, not to mix with later S-37/Su-47 Berkut) are the same shape.




For more bizzare planes see my web at: www.hitechweb.szm.sk/pi.htm