MIGs in Space
 

And pigs might fly.......

New Russian MiG interceptor will be able to operate in space – developer’s CEO

The cutting-edge interceptor aircraft, which has been under development for several years, will be able to reach space and even potentially operate without a pilot, according to the CEO of the MiG corporation working on the project.
The research and development of the PAK DP (perspective aviation complex of long-range interceptor) was launched by the MiG Corporation in 2013. PAK DP, dubbed by media with the unofficial designation MiG-41, is expected to replace the aging long-range interceptor MiG-31 and its variants.


The new fighter will be a spiritual successor of MiG-31, MiG Corporation CEO Ilya Tarasenko stated, shedding some light on the interceptor under development. “[The development] is at the stage of finalizing the image of the plane. It will be a gradual transition from MiG-31 to PAK DA,” Tarasenko told RT at the Army-2017 expo in Kubinka on Wednesday. The “Army-2017” forum is held in the “Patriot” Congress and Exhibition Center, Alabino Military Training Grounds and Kubinka Airfield in Moscow Region. The forum features cutting-edge novelties of the defense industrial complex and is a platform for holding negotiations and striking deals. Aside from the experts, the event also attracts the general public to marvel at the deadly military hardware on the ground and in the air.

The plane, however, will not be just a modernization of MiG-31, it will be an entirely new machine, having “the ability to operate in space, new weapons, new speeds, new operational range,” Tarasenko told Zvezda TV channel on Tuesday. “It will be an entirely new plane, where entirely new technologies to operate in the Arctic zone will be utilized. This plane will safeguard the whole border of our homeland. Later, the project will become unmanned,” TASS quoted Tarasenko as saying.

While the plane is still under development, it might go to into production by the mid-2020s, Tarasenko believes. “We’re shaping our technical offer, so that the customer would make a decision on the need to develop the plane. … According to our internal estimates, we should make it to the serial development in 2025,” Tarasenko told RT.

To meet expectations, the new plane should be able to fly at speeds at least four times faster than the speed of sound, Russian media earlier reported, citing renowned test pilot Anatoly Kvochur. If the plane would be able to reach such speeds, it would be likely packed, to some degree, with artificial intelligence control systems, to help human pilots to cope with the extreme flight conditions, aviation expert Fabrizio Poli said. “It will have certain elements of artificial intelligence built into the jet, because, obviously, flying at those speeds, the human brain is not capable of thinking that fast,” Poli told RT. “There are a lot of new technologies going to be put into this aircraft, for sure.”

The plane might be also equipped with laser weapons, as Russia possesses prototypes of such arms, according to Vladimir Mikheev, an aide to the Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern Deputy CEO, who believes, however, that such systems will belong to the sixth-generation fighters. “The laser weapons will allow this interceptor aircraft to intercept enemy missiles and disengage the targets,” Poli said.

...and back in the room!

Oh horse-****.
I do admire Comrade Korolev (may he rest in peace) but what a load of absolute bollocks.

Why not. The technology associated with the X15 enabled many aspects of what is being considered.
Today we have the X37b, with an internal stores bay, doing who knows what, where, when, …
SABRE engine, sometime, tomorrow, next day,...
Never underestimate human iginuitiy.

Or Russian exaggeration ;)

Has anyone got the phone number for Mitchell Gant?

How exactly is the MiG going to get into space - and how does it return without burning up?

I guess it is a question if defining what space means here... But if it is the commonly used 100km limit I would be very impressed!

Well, the NF-104A managed 120000ft around 50+ years ago. But only by flying a specific ballistic trajectory. Hence only exceptional pilots were able to cope; big mouth Yeager didn't bother with a brief and as a result destroyed one by his own incompetence :mad:. Then tried to blame the aircraft....:uhoh:

Weelll...
Supposing for a moment that this machine will be capable of achieving mach 4 at say somewhere like 20km high, and of then pulling into a steep climb. Considering what they achieved with the MiG-25 prototype, that shouldn't be out of the question. Then the engines might continue working, at progressively reduced thrust, till somewhere between 35 and 40km, as they have before on the F104 and MiG, briefly. From there, the plane might coast ballistically to somewhere like 100km high (check the potential and kinetic energies, even allowing for air friction) sort of like the Virgin Galactic rocket plane is supposed to. But it'll then be operating in deep vacuum, where no aerodynamic steering will be effective, so it would effectively drop down like a stone until it reached a sufficiently dense atmosphere again; by which time it would likely be torn apart by friction, unless designed for such stunts.
To summarize, human ingenuity yes, but Russian hyperbole too.

It's more likely to be a poor translation of the original article - pointing towards a ASAT(X37) capability.

I can imagine that those who have seen the wrong side of "Ballistic", getting up there is the easy part, it's where you're at when you return to being non-ballistic that matters. Trajectory, free fall dynamics, vehicle stress and human factors when the driver is virtually SLF is the tricky bit.

Control was managed without main engine thrust in the shuttle so not insurmountable, and I am sure something similar is being done in the X37B but in a "fighting" Mig :eek:

Imagegear

The dividing line is something between having an armed Virgin Galactic - up and down, with some manoeuvre capability, or the X37 with orbital capability.
The choice between them depends on the role envisaged for the vehicle and the likely weapons systems.

A VG type, ground launch, alternative engines could be like a point defence aircraft, but at speeds and altitudes which offer enormous gains in weapon range; providing the detector systems can match that - not excluding ground based or other airborne detections. It would be expected to have an intercept capability against conventional aircraft at ranges in excess of a stand-off weapon launch and probably an anti satellite or even anti ICBM capability. There might even be an attack stand off capability (anti ship / submarine). This is typical for the requirements of large territory defence systems, N America, Canada, Russia.

The X 37 type would be more like a space battle platform, but with limitations of orbital mechanics. The ability to launch a reconnaissance vehicle on a selectable one orbit or even fully manoeuvrable orbital track could be very useful. This might be beyond a ‘fighter’ designation, except if the vehicle has a runway take off, followed by a choice to orbit or return to base. Again refer to the expected role.

Both options might require developed HOTOL type technology, and possibly alternatives to the SABRE engine. Yet the jet engine started life in two guises, axial and centrifugal, so why not a jet, ramjet, rocket, with a bit of linear acceleration for take off (with ski jump for upwardness).

What VG, what X-37B? Just see imagination flying high after reading the words "operate in space" :-)

In reality, the roots of these words are back in 80's when F-15 was an experimental platform for ASAT and "symmetrically" one of modifications of MiG-31 was developed for a similar purpose in SU. Just a platform, "space" was a business of a missile. Tons of publications on that subject on the Net.

Thus, nothing really challenging. Sounds like 40 y.o. technologies would be taken from the shelf (full of dust) and a little bit updated.

What do they do when they get up there?

Irrespective of the hoop spouted by the Russkies, kudos for best thread title ever....

I wonder if we are dealing with a bad translation. Did he say космическое пространство? Or did he say "near space"? Or did the word до feature in there somewhere. I (and a lot of others here) have flown at or above 60,000 ft and it feels like space but certainly isn't, however if he was talking non-specifically about above 100,000 it could be quite possible for current technology. He specified an entirely new aircraft not a development of an existing one, so we may not be talking "current technology" but something more advanced and maybe well in excess of 100,000 is possible? He also wasn't specific about timing ... perhaps wisely.

I thought it said 'Pigs in Space' and was about the disco ball.

To the contrary, gave a very near time frame. Compare that to the extended development time of our new US and Russian jets nearing service entry.....

I'm not quite clear on what a space-capable interceptor would intercept that wouldn't be more economically intercepted by a conventional interceptor firing a space-capable missile. Anyone?

Dyna-soar perhaps?

Asteroids!! :eek:

Re what a space-capable interceptor would intercept:
Nothing. But it'd be hard to fight; and that altitude would lend those AA-12s remarkable additional range.

It's the fusing with a frontal closing speed of M4+ to allow an expanding rod or fragmentation head to detonate and reach the target before it went past. Probably need a new hittile - or a forward looking fusing system.

Personally I'd recommend the 'forward looking systems' of the lovely Gabrielle Drake as Lt. Ellis in that UFO clip....:ok:

Somehow I don't see those uniforms getting past the misery-guts censors of today's TV....:(

Additional range, yes, but with no control. The AA-12/R-77 uses aerodynamic control surfaces. No atmosphere, no control. In other words, it'll fly a pointless ballistic trajectory, assuming it's even stable with no control surfaces, which seems unlikely. More likely it will be a greater threat to the launching aircraft than to any target.

Ken, whilst your post is technically correct, perhaps you overlook that the technology which enables the ‘fighter’ to get into a position to fire a missile, should also be available for terminal guidance of the weapon system.
Also if the target was ground based then a strike weapon system might be tolerant to late stage aerodynamic guidance.

The alternative of space-space intercept system would pose more problems, but some of the issues of an air-space operation appear to have been solved.
An exception might be the need to preposition the launch aircraft with respect to the target to be defended - range; thence the discussion of the advantage of increased range. (how to defend a target - sub fleet, without pre positioning a defence so it does not disclose the target's location).

True, but the, admittedly 'troubled', Novator K-100 "AWACS Killer" uses thrust vectoring - as might any as yet unseen Russian, or Chinese for that matter, AAM. Launched from 100km altitude it would have a significant range enhancement over the design spec >200km.

We ignore these potential threats from the East at our peril.

MILFs in space.

Short-term memory problem? It's been posted further up the page.

Anything that has Gabriella Drake in it is worth watching again.

Indeed, k3k3 - but her name is Gabrielle.

She was only 25 when UFO was made, incidentally. Nice to hear English spoken in a proper 'English Gel' accent rather than in the sloppy Estuary oik-talk of today.

I was addressing the post that claimed additional range specifically for the AA-12 if it is launched exoatmospheric. My point being that the AA-12 cannot function exoatmospheric. However, a missile with thrust vectoring would likely work in such an environment. Likely, but no guarantee. There are other factors at play in such an environment. In any event, the K-100 / KS-172 currently is aerodynamically controlled, with a thrust vector system in development. Russia has lost interest in it and only India remains interested enough to provide development funding. It is far from operational with no projected in service date.

I'm not remotely suggesting we "ignore these threats." But one must question the nature of that "threat." A fighter that can zoom climb into space us one thing. A fighter that has operable sensors and weapons in space is entirely another. Consider that once in space, it will have to either rely on battery power, or on a hydrazine (or similar) fueled APU. That'll have to be a very massive battery or a powerful APU with good size fuel tankage that can power the radar and weapons systems (not to mention life support) for a reasonably useful time period. And while reaction thrusters can give it attitude control to keep the nose pointed in the right direction and the wings level, it won't be able to maneuver. It will fly an essentially ballistic trajectory. How militarily useful is that? And all that stuff required for space operations will be dead weight during atmospheric operation while simultaneously consuming precious airframe volume. If the intent of flying exoatmospheric is to give the missile greater range, it would be far far simpler to just give the missile a more powerful rocket motor and more fuel. And it could stay below 100,000 feet where it's aerodynamic controls would remain useable.

About that ballistic trajectory. Have you considered what that means when launching a missile? It means the missile will fly the same trajectory as the launch aircraft after release until its rocket motor ignites. But with no aerodynamics, will the missile be stable after release and before engine ignition? Which way will it be pointing when the rocket ignites? The bottom line: exoatmospheric missile launch will be a very sporty affair.

You've basically repeated my post in a somewhat less succinct way.

The dismissive nature of your post, concentrating solely on the AA-12, certainly gave your post the tone of ignoring the potential threat. It's an all to common attitude, the dismissive one, here sometimes - not necessarily from you that is; shades of Chinese carriers etc.

"Dismissive nature of my post?" "Concentrating solely on the AA-12?" What part of I was replying to a post that made specific claims about the AA-12 is hard to understand? The simple fact is, the AA-12 cannot operate exoatmospherically. There's nothing "dismissive" about stating a simple relevant fact.

As for the "potential threat" and the "tone" of one's post, the tone of your post clearly indicates that you have not thought through the nature of "the potential threat" posed by a fighter than can zoom climb into space. Even assuming someone goes to the huge expense of developing and producing a fighter with such capability (which seems highly unlikely), such an ability has very limited, if any, military utility.

As for the Chinese carrier, I made no mention of that. Me personally, I hope they manage to build a few and it would not surprise me at all if the USN even helped them a bit in the process.

Absolutely agree. Lots of research were done from late 70's through early 90's in USA and SU/Russia on that subject based on real experience gained from the Shuttle and Buran programs, respectively, and their derivatives (smaller spaceplanes). Was involved in that "business" at that time. The conclusions were exactly as you put it.