Mig-41

[DDE]

42 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Are Russians those who has bought F-35?!

No... we're the ones that sold 'em!

Spoiler

3 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

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).

Well, let's see - were any actual military fighters outfitted like that? The RCS replaced the freaking radar. Sure, there was talk of peroxide rocket "superperformance" systems, but logistics of having tens of thousands of gallons of peroxide on aircraft carriers killed it even before afterburners showed up.

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

I read this and immediately thought of classic Prada propaganda

Edited September 4, 2017 by DDE

[insert_name]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Are Russians those who has bought F-35?!

look at the mig 35, it has been in development since the eighties, still only a couple prototypes. The F 35 is a cakewalk by comparison.

[DDE]

15 minutes ago, insert_name said:

look at the mig 35, it has been in development since the eighties, still only a couple prototypes. The F 35 is a cakewalk by comparison.

...probably because this designation has been used for four unrelated MiG-29 variants and the MiG 1.44?

Edited September 4, 2017 by DDE

[insert_name]

26 minutes ago, DDE said:

...probably because this designation has been used for four unrelated MiG-29 variants and the MiG 1.44?

ah good to know, thanks

[TheEpicSquared]

On 9/4/2017 at 7:05 PM, 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?

What, you mean (in my opinion) the disaster that is the F-35? 

 

Anyway, I think this is a gross misinterpretation of very doubtful information. A space-based fighter doesn't make sense, and unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't it be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty? 

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

wouldn't it be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty? 

No.

[DDE]

5 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

What, you mean (in my opinion) the disaster that is the F-35? 

Unlikely. Starting with around the time the MiG-31 was ordered, fighters have been giving up maximum performance values (velocity, altitude) in favour of mid-altitude maneuverability, range, electronics and stealth.

Edited September 6, 2017 by DDE

[linuxgurugamer]

5 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

What, you mean (in my opinion) the disaster that is the F-35? 

I was actually thinking about the F-18, F-16, and F-16, and the F-22.

The F-35 doesn't have that performance, it trades it off for stealth, maneuverability, etc

 

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Unlikely. Starting with around the time the MiG-31 was ordered, fighters have been giving up maximum performance values (velocity, altitude) in favour of mid-altitude maneuverability, range, electronics and stealth.

Early in the thread the F-104 Starfighter (a Kelly Johnson plane) was mentioned.  It was famous for being great at speed and height, but less than great at everything else.  After that, I suspect that US planes were designed with more balance in mind.  I'd expect the MiG-25 to have a similar place for MiG planes: speed and height were ideal, but maneuvering and climb limited a pilot's options.  Making a plane out of steel made for a great high-speed plane.  I'm less sure about making a great jet fighter.

[DDE]

9 hours ago, wumpus said:

Early in the thread the F-104 Starfighter (a Kelly Johnson plane) was mentioned.  It was famous for being great at speed and height, but less than great at everything else.  After that, I suspect that US planes were designed with more balance in mind.  I'd expect the MiG-25 to have a similar place for MiG planes: speed and height were ideal, but maneuvering and climb limited a pilot's options.  Making a plane out of steel made for a great high-speed plane.  I'm less sure about making a great jet fighter.

Climb was good too, apparently. Maneuverability... thank Marx for having a country big enough to turn that thing around.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Climb was good too, apparently. Maneuverability... thank Marx for having a country big enough to turn that thing around.

Karl Marx was German, lived most of his life in London, and never set foot in Russia. Not sure what he had to do with the size of the Soviet Union.

[YNM]

Is it possible ?

 

Lets face it, technological advances in these ends are almost because there's a need, there's a pinch. I think US had similar idea-things as well, as replacement for standard missiles, so I could only imagine if any advance is/was actually made it's under immense fog-of-tech. It's something like such or they're plain disinterested. Either way it's not easy to tell one from the other.

Edited September 7, 2017 by YNM

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Karl Marx was German, lived most of his life in London, and never set foot in Russia. Not sure what he had to do with the size of the Soviet Union.

Quote

Thank God, oh, wait, Marx.

- unidentified Red Line commissar, Metro 2033

 

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, wumpus said:

Early in the thread the F-104 Starfighter (a Kelly Johnson plane) was mentioned.  It was famous for being great at speed and height, but less than great at everything else.  After that, I suspect that US planes were designed with more balance in mind.  I'd expect the MiG-25 to have a similar place for MiG planes: speed and height were ideal, but maneuvering and climb limited a pilot's options.  Making a plane out of steel made for a great high-speed plane.  I'm less sure about making a great jet fighter.

Yes, fighter planes shifted from focus on high attitude and high speed to low attitude and maneuvering. Mostly because of surface to air missiles making it very dangerous to go high over enemy territory, high attitude is still preferred if enemy lack high level SAM in any numbers but in this case performance is not important. 

 

[Nibb31]

It depends on the role of the fighter. Cold war interceptors were designed to intercept enemy bombers with primitive AAMs, therefore speed and altitude were important. Nowadays, air superiority is achieved by over the horizon weapon systems. The aircraft is primarily a weapon-carrying platform that is part of an integrated system composed of AWACS, EW, and surface-based stations.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Nibb31