It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The MIG41

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


The pilots won't incur any kind of G forces. Why would they?




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Russian engine manufacturing is catching up fast to the West. The AL-41F will have a number of similarities to the F120 which lost out to the F119 for the F-22 powerplant.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Don't fighter pilots generally experience high +/- G forces while performing aerobatic maneuvers? I'm just thinking if this thing fly's so fast and has similar characteristics to other fighter jets if there would be an adverse effect on the pilots.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


It won't be doing much maneuvering at mach 4. It will only use that speed to intercept a target. If it has to dog fight it will be sub-sonic.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


The SR-71 at Mach 3 had a turn radius in the hundreds of miles. At those speeds if you try any kind of sharp turn it will tear the aircraft to pieces. They can dash, and fire weapons at that speed, but to pull high G turns they will have to be much slower.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


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


Well.....just mach 1 more to go!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


That was in the 1960/70s. That extra "mach 1 to go" won't be a problem to overcome. There are already plans for faster designs capable of releasing weapons with no problems.
edit on 3/6/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


The operational...er...I mean concept of the SR72 is supposed to be able to strike at mach 6.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


That was in the 1960/70s. That extra "mach 1 to go" won't be a problem to overcome. There are already plans for faster designs capable of releasing weapons with no problems.
edit on 3/6/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


I hear ya but this is supposed to be a "fighter" plane.

The 20mm vulcan shoots at like 3400 ft per sec

Mach 4 is over 4400 ft per sec......

so there are some "non-missile" issues.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Sammamishman
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


The operational...er...I mean concept of the SR72 is supposed to be able to strike at mach 6.


well....come on.....with sat tech....why do we need an SR72? It is a scramjet spy plane....not a strategic strike plane



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

UxoriousMagnus
But there is a reason the SR-71 didn't have armaments and those laws of physics are still an issue today.


YF-12 launched Falcons off rails at over Mach 3 without difficulty. No reason the Russians couldn't do it as well.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

UxoriousMagnus
The 20mm vulcan shoots at like 3400 ft per sec

Mach 4 is over 4400 ft per sec......

so there are some "non-missile" issues.


I don't think the Russians are going to be using guns at Mach 4, so I don't think it's a problem. This will be an interceptor and not a dogfighter.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   

_Del_

UxoriousMagnus
The 20mm vulcan shoots at like 3400 ft per sec

Mach 4 is over 4400 ft per sec......

so there are some "non-missile" issues.


I don't think the Russians are going to be using guns at Mach 4, so I don't think it's a problem. This will be an interceptor and not a dogfighter.


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.

"Air superiority" fighter jets are what governments are looking for now. Being able to go Mach 4 is virtually useless in an air superiority fighter.

But.....it will be cool if they do it

edit:....hey unless they are going with optic lasers on those suckers......then we have something
edit on 7-3-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Hope it has a design like the Su-34 .. That plane is an absolute beauty



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


You mean those satellites that even amateurs can track down to the second on their orbits?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


Yeah, because bombers will never be used again, which is why China, Russia, and the US are working on new platforms.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


That's kind of the point I was trying to make. If indeed this new theoretical Mig 41 is a fighter aircraft and not a spy plane like the SR-71 or U-2 how could it possibly manoeuvre at such speeds without tearing itself apart never mind the red smear on the cockpit that would be the pilot?

If it has a turning radius of a few hundreds miles what's the point in designating it as a fighter? Sounds more like a reconnaissance aircraft or bomber. Then again can we even launch guided bombs or missiles at 3000+ mph? I imagine one wrong move and both the plane and ordinance will become one.


I'm asking you Zaphod58 because you seem to know you stuff regarding anything aviation.

edit on 7-3-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Because it's not a Fighter, it's an Interceptor. There's a subtle but very important difference.

A Fighter, like the F-22 is designed to fight other fighters. That means maneuverability is key, and you want to be able to make those 9G turns.

An Interceptor on the other hand may look like a fighter, but is designed to intercept aircraft as far out as possible. That means either long range weapons (such as the F-14/AIM-54 combination) or high speed (MiG-25/-31). High G turns aren't as necessary because the idea isn't to mix it up, but hit them and dash.

It's one of those "not all fighters can be interceptors, but interceptors can be fighters" scenarios. Both the F-14 and F-15 started as interceptors but made magnificent fighters.
edit on 3/7/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


What about launching ordnance at such speeds, wouldn't she have to slow to release her payload?

I mean who wants to have to slow down to fire off a missile seems counterproductive to me if that's the case.

edit on 7-3-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


As for the other part of your question the YF-12 was an interceptor based on the A-12 (what later became the SR-71), and launched a missile at Mach 3.2. It's an easy step from there to faster.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join