Mig-41

[Jas0n]

According numerous websites, MiG Corporation's CEO stated that their new interceptor will have the ability to operate in space, which I find to be pretty questionable, unless it's not jet propelled. 

What do all of you science folks think? Would it be feasible to create an interceptor with such capabilities?

 

 

[Bill Phil]

Getting into space isn't that hard. It's staying there that's hard.

I don't think they could have one vehicle fly from the ground to space, but maybe a variant that they build for space flight that could be launched Dyna-Soar style...?

[Nibb31]

I suppose it means that it can reach 100km peak altitude. Hard to believe. It would need RCS for attitude control and probably some sort of auxiliary rocket (add-on boosters?).

Edited September 4, 2017 by Nibb31

[DerekL1963]

12 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I suppose it means that it can reach 100km peak altitude. Hard to believe. It would need RCS for attitude control and probably some sort of auxiliary rocket (add-on boosters?).

The big question isn't how but why?  There's nothing else operating up there, and you don't need to go that high to launch an ASAT or to intercept anything lower down.

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

The big question isn't how but why?  There's nothing else operating up there, and you don't need to go that high to launch an ASAT or to intercept anything lower down.

Maybe for the sake of high speed. If the intercept range is large, then a higher speed might be useful. But then why not just use a missile? 

[DerekL1963]

1 minute ago, Bill Phil said:

Maybe for the sake of high speed.

You'd need a very large non airbreathing propulsion system AKA a rocket...  making the vehicle very large, heavy, and about as maneuverable as a BUFF.

[kerbiloid]

Why not? Again...

Spoiler

 

More accurately,

2 hours ago, Jas0n said:

MiG Corporation's CEO stated that their new interceptor will

"...be able to fulfil combat tasks even in space."

MiG-31 also can do this since 1980s. It can hit sats up to 120 km altitude, but this doesn't mean it can into space.
So, probably MiG-41 will not be an X-Wing, but just have more perfect air-to-space missile launch&guide capabilities integrated from scratch, rather than added later like with MiG-31.

Also they say, later it will become uncrewed.

Edited September 4, 2017 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Jas0n said:

According numerous websites

Which?

I'm guessing you're referring to the National Interest article describing it as a 5++ or 6th gen fighter: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mig-41-russias-wants-build-super-6th-generation-fighter-20064

The author fails to cite any sources, and for good reason: they appear to be pulling info out of their own rectum. Yes, the Russian military has claimed to be "envisioning" 6th and even 7th generation fighters with near-space or even orbital capability - but then it's the same military that has funded psionics and a 'special type' of radiation that instantly turns diesel fuel to goop, as late as 2004. And The Diplomat has previously claimed that T-14 Armata will receive nuclear shells, so the press is just as capable of spewing repurposed bovine waste.

However, the statements for MiG-41 PAK-DP are rather tame: prototypes by 2020, with the primary feature of Mach 4-4.3 capability.

As to propulsion, they could be betting on Energomash's pulse-detonation rocket program and its 10% ISP increase.

Edited September 4, 2017 by DDE

[p1t1o]

3 hours ago, Jas0n said:

According numerous websites, MiG Corporation's CEO stated that their new interceptor will have the ability to operate in space, which I find to be pretty questionable, unless it's not jet propelled. 

What do all of you science folks think? Would it be feasible to create an interceptor with such capabilities?

 

 

Dont need to read any more, Im calling BS straight away. Its not a serious claim, for so. many. reasons.

It makes zero sense economically, technologically, logically, even militarily.

May as well claim their next submarine will be able to go on land.

Dont feel too bad, rumours like this are a constant. It'll be something twisted from a scrap of truth, like someone might have said operate "on the edge of" space, and some journalist turned it into a spacecraft. The ASAT angle is a good one as well.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

You'd need a very large non airbreathing propulsion system AKA a rocket...  making the vehicle very large, heavy, and about as maneuverable as a BUFF.

This, an suborbital bomber makes some sense, you can then launch stand of missiles with very long range even use it as an satellite launcher for small satellites. 
But it would be an bomber not an fighter jet. 
Think you need around mach 6 to get up to 100 km. 

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

6 hours ago, p1t1o said:

next submarine will be able to go on land.

Are you joking?
Why a submarine should go on land, when it just can drill into.

 

[insert_name]

I assume it will carry a large payload of male bovine excrement and be propelled by flying pigs that are feeling from hell after it froze over.

[Zeiss Ikon]

Well, let's see -- the F-104 Starfighter came out in 1954.  It was capable of flying vertically to flameout, and then coasting high enough it needed RCS to point the nose back down for the descent (Chuck Yeager was almost killed when he flew this trajectory in one fitted with a peroxide booster rocket, but lacking the RCS setup).  Much more recently, this aircraft has been employed as a "first stage" for satellite launches.

If the Russians can't beat this performance after sixty years, they just haven't been paying attention.  "Operation in space" isn't the same as orbital capability, it just requires the aircraft to be capable of flying above 100 km, presumably under control and with some provision for safe return to the lower atmosphere.  I suspect what they're referring to is an aircraft with rocket boost, capable of high enough altitude and speed to give it a shooting solution against a LEO satellite or orbiting spaceplane.  A cross between an SR-71 and an X-15 (both pre-1960 designs, BTW) should do the job.

[wumpus]

21 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Well, let's see -- the F-104 Starfighter came out in 1954.

And this capability has been added to how many fighters since?  If you want to fire a missile at a target in space, there is no real advantage to having your fighter in space.  A missile can get there easier.

I read this and immediately thought of classic Pravda propaganda, or perhaps CNN's famous screenshot "18 times the speed of light".

Edited September 5, 2017 by wumpus
s/prada/pravda

[kerbiloid]

Wiki says that F-104 with rocket boosters reached 24 km. So old, so low...
MiG-31 dynamic ceiling without boosters - 30 km.

Googled a quoted original of the interview.
https://www.aex.ru/news/2017/8/23/174128/

Spoiler

"...Для нас это естественное развитие самолета МиГ-31. Это будет совершенно новый технологический самолет. Новые технологии, незаметность, работа в космосе, новые скорости, новый радиус".

"For us this is a natural progression of MiG-31. This will be absolutely new technological[ly?] plane. New technologies, obscurity, (work/activity/operating) in the space, new velocities, new radius."

So, probably: improved capabilities for space targets interception (anti-sat), higher speed → higher dynamic ceiling (jump to 40 km?) and probably (thanks to less air drag on that altitude) suborbital jump to greater distance).
(The latter, btw, explains why making it uncrewed is important.)

[linuxgurugamer]

F-104 in 1954 reaches 24 km

Mig-31 in 2017 reaches 30 km.

I wonder what a modern american plane could do?

[DerekL1963]

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

This, an suborbital bomber makes some sense, you can then launch stand of missiles with very long range even use it as an satellite launcher for small satellites. 

It doesn't make any sense for either application - in both of them it's much cheaper and easier to add performance to the [aircraft's] payload than to the aircraft itself.

[Gaarst]

4 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

F-104 in 1954 reaches 24 km

Mig-31 in 2017 reaches 30 km.

I wonder what a modern american plane could do?

The jet powered altitude record is 37,650 m, set by a MiG-25 in 1977. The MiG-25 was an interceptor with a lot of trade-offs to enable speeds up to Mach 3.2; most modern fighters tend to be multirole: they are better overall but I don't think any of them can beat this old record.

[Jas0n]

So it's probably a BS claim made big by media misinterpreting it? 

Darn I thought we had the ability to make X-wings.

[insert_name]

41 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Wiki says that F-104 with rocket boosters reached 24 km. So old, so low...
MiG-31 dynamic ceiling without boosters - 30 km.

Googled a quoted original of the interview.
https://www.aex.ru/news/2017/8/23/174128/

  Hide contents

"...Для нас это естественное развитие самолета МиГ-31. Это будет совершенно новый технологический самолет. Новые технологии, незаметность, работа в космосе, новые скорости, новый радиус".

"For us this is a natural progression of MiG-31. This will be absolutely new technological[ly?] plane. New technologies, obscurity, (work/activity/operating) in the space, new velocities, new radius."

So, probably: improved capabilities for space targets interception (anti-sat), higher speed → higher dynamic ceiling (jump to 40 km?) and probably (thanks to less air drag on that altitude) suborbital jump to greater distance).
(The latter, btw, explains why making it uncrewed is important.)

The Russian areospace industry is so corrupt it can barely keep cold war hardware working I doubt they can build a spaceplane

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

The jet powered altitude record is 37,650 m, set by a MiG-25 in 1977. The MiG-25 was an interceptor with a lot of trade-offs to enable speeds up to Mach 3.2; most modern fighters tend to be multirole: they are better overall but I don't think any of them can beat this old record.

I assume that you are referring to records set by fighter jets. Because the highest altitude reached by an impeding jet was the SR-71 and the a12

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

F-104 in 1954 reaches 24 km

Mig-31 in 2017 reaches 30 km.

I wonder what a modern american plane could do?

F-104 didn't fly until 1956. The XF-104 would be flying at the time, but as far as I can tell, it never reached 20 km, let alone 24.

The NF-104, on the other hand, could get to 25.9 km, even higher when coasting after acceleration (up to 36.6 km) although it was first flown in 1963.

1 minute ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I assume that you are referring to records set by fighter jets. Because the highest altitude reached by an impeding jet was the SR-71 and the a12

I believe we're referring to zoom climb records, not sustained flight. I'm not sure if the SR-71 ever did a zoom climb beyond its service ceiling.

[cratercracker]

*2political4me*

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

The Russian areospace industry is so corrupt

Are Russians those who has bought F-35?!

[Jas0n]

Yo guys I started this thread to discuss the technological possibilities, not the politics.