Fat-Mig

>>34622500
It's the russian HAPPYPLANE

>>34622500
Without stealth it would need some seriously hardcore radar tech that could burn through current stealth to have a chance of surviving.

>>34622513
Fair enough, But wouldn't the combined radar output of say, three of them theoretically detect and lock an enemy aircraft

>>34622500
>Better made engines, Improved AESA radar systems and BVRAAM missiles
The Russians are having issue putting these exact things into service and they don't seem like that'll change sometime soon.

>>34622513
Didnt the original Mig 25 have a retardedly strong radar?

>>34622500
>Mig-31
>Upcoming Mig-41

>>34622580
By cold war standards, yes. However since then western tech has wildly surpassed it. Still, if it were to receive new radar that took advantage of its huge radar cavity, it could theoretically still be dangerous.

File: MIGsturnrussianmengay.jpg (97KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 427x640px

>>34622500

You see Ivan, when flying of the MIG, you must always have hand on eject handle (like for when you are stroking of my penis), for the quick escapings when American plane is of shootings us.

>>34622606
MIG drivers need their hand on the eject handle at all time anyways, since 50% of all attempts to do fancy Russian acrobatics end in a crash.

It's statistically more dangerous to go to a Russian airshow than to shoot AK-47s at low flying Apache helicopters.

>>34622500
>Why dont the Russians work to perfect these things rather than waste time on PAK-50 trash?

>He doesn't know PAK-DP

File: mig31s.jpg (179KB, 1600x775px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1600x775px

>>34622500
mig-35s are mission-limited
can't escort well, can't loiter, can't multirole

pretty much sole mission is intercept - start from an airfield deep within russia already knowing the target profile, rapid approach, lauch (usually from BVR), return to base

>>34622513
>>34622560
typical excercize mission for mig-35 is intercepting cruise missiles, with relatively low RCS, flying low. talked to a pilot, seems military is pretty confident they can intercept stealth targets within airspace where top-of the line SAMS or AWACS provide early detection.

the way i get it they expect stealth treats trying to penetrate on low altitude, with migs flying at about ceiling, acquiring targets from above, that's why they typically train like this.

>>34622613
but they're damn good aerobatics aren't they
though maneurability is more about sukhois
https://twitter.com/Russ_Warrior/status/888062787272019969

File: ukranian threads.png (153KB, 737x540px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 737x540px

>>34622625
>Rate of climb: 330 m/s (65,000 ft/min)

>>34622625
>
I like how they came from a single point in the sky.

>>34622625
> mig-35
mig-31 i mean
also, with supercruise, T-50s will be capable of about the same mig-31 mission profiles but will be able to do any typical fighter mission too.

>>34622618
>PAK-DP
seeing how long the PAK-FA has been in development, any of the other PAK-XX projects will remain ebin 3D renders for a long, long time.

File: p3-1024x576.jpg (50KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1024x576px

>>34622720
Military wants to market the thing but they DO realize PAK-FA is behind its times if we're talking big war, and doesn't bring breakthrough capabilities to defensive war which is pretty much all Russia's usually focused on.

Best bet economically is to wait out and see if Russia can hop on the next gen train. But PAK-DA (DP sounds nice but it's actualyl DA) is different - it's not some breakthrough tech, and it's not a tactical jet, it's deterrence. I think PAK-FA wil stay limited, but PAK-DA is a priority. I think there's a good chance they'll field it mid-20es, maybe even a few years before b-21

>>34622720
>seeing how long the PAK-FA has been in development
>First flight 2010
>7 years later 10 planes are ready
For example: F35
>first flight 2000
>7 years later roughly 8 planes are ready

>>34622905
More like 300, but you know...numbers are hard

File: 2007.png (41KB, 825x612px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 825x612px

>>34622918

>300 F-35s
>in 2007

>>34622737

You will probably never see it this side of century.

What you will see is resumed production of Tu-160 with new avionics.

>>34622737
>(DP sounds nice but it's actualyl DA)
Kek

PAK-FA is fighter
PAK-DA is bomber
PAK-DP is interceptor
PAK-SHA is CAS
PAK-TA is cargo

File: 1486293687662.jpg (135KB, 473x445px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 473x445px

>>34622989
why are they all named in that retarded way?

pak written in cyrillic means cancer

>>34623012
yeah, but in cyrillic it's ПAК

>>34623012
It's Prospective Aircraft K-K-Kombat something.

>>34622500
>make tons of interceptors
>get BTFO the second you have to turn

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

File: mig-31bm with r-37 & r-73 (2).jpg (248KB, 1280x860px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1280x860px

>>34622675
>also, with supercruise, T-50s will be capable
Name a single other fighter aircraft that can endure Mach 2.83 for 5 minutes and over Mach 2.4 for another 10 minutes. Pro-tip: you can't. Modern fighters might be able to last longer simply due to supercruise capability and more modern and fuel efficient engines, but every single one of them would literally fall apart trying to do what a MiG-31 interception mission is. This is not the same role. A usual modern multi-role fighter will not replace an interceptor in any foreseeable future.

>>34623012
PAK stands for "perspective aircraft complex". -FA translates into "(of) frontline aviation", -DA into "(of) long range aviation", -DP into "(of) long range interception", -ShA into "(of) ground-attack aviation" and -TA into "(of) cargo aviation".
>pak written in cyrillic means cancer
"Paк" transliterates as "rak", not "pak".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA#Russian

File: call of duty.jpg (328KB, 1021x1957px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1021x1957px

>>34623209
>Interceptors
>Having to turn
JESUS FUCK! YOU ARE INTERCEPTING ON THE WRONG SIDE YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT!
Besides, MiG-31 is not even that bad at turning.

File: mig-31bm (7).jpg (218KB, 1280x895px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1280x895px

>>34623316
>Modern fighters might be able to last longer
What I meant to say is "to remain supersonic for a longer period of time", that is over Mach 1. None of modern fighters, especially stealth ones, are designed to preform the dashes MiG-31 is capable of.

File: 9dd9e4200c442c1746cc1c17f89e6cfb.jpg (35KB, 736x521px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 736x521px

>>34622905

First flight for the F-35 was in 2006.
When will you people finally understand that the X-35 IS NOT an F-35?

>>34623692
>When will you people finally understand that the X-35 IS NOT an F-35?
Around the time that people understand that PAK-FA is not T-50 perhaps?

>>34622613
>It's statistically more dangerous to go to a Russian airshow than to shoot AK-47s at low flying Apache helicopters.
Leave my sides alone you monster

File: t-10 & su-27.jpg (104KB, 460x302px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 460x302px

>>34624000
PAK FA is T-50. What you are trying to say is that it's not Su-XX.

>>34622500
>fuck sducts

File: mig25.jpg (162KB, 1024x690px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x690px

>>34622675
Isn't OP a mig-25?

File: MiG-25.jpg (86KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x532px

>>34622500
I don't know, but it has the lewdest rear of all planes.

File: mig-31bm intakes.jpg (237KB, 1280x883px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x883px

>>34626533

File: mig-25rb (3).jpg (408KB, 1682x1025px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1682x1025px

>>34626557
It is.

>>34622613
Dangerous to who... bystanders? Sure. Pilots? Well, their practical presentation of Zvezda K-36 zero-zero ejection seats is rather impressive

File: bush_finger_flip.jpg (23KB, 345x391px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 345x391px

>>34623316
>Name a single other fighter aircraft that can endure Mach 2.83 for 5 minutes and over Mach 2.4 for another 10 minutes.
YF-12.

>Pro-tip: you can't.
Pic related.

File: bushshitfinger.jpg (13KB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 280x210px

>>34626732
>Status Canceled
>Number built 3
>SR-71 crash rate 37.5%
Yeah, right, you see, even omitting the fact that we obviously are talking about modern operational fighters, the example is not very good.
>Pic related
More like pic related.

File: 1302156438940.jpg (37KB, 370x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 370x300px

>>34626857
>All dat vatnik butthurt
You never said shit about modern or in service fighters fighters. You specifically said

>Name a single other fighter aircraft that can endure Mach 2.83 for 5 minutes and over Mach 2.4 for another 10 minutes.

You're just mad the US beat the Russians to it by a few decades and decided it was a fucking retarded idea and dropped it.

File: mig-25rb.png (593KB, 290x2021px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 290x2021px

>>34626950
It literally responded to anon saying "T-50s will be capable of about the same mig-31 mission profiles", autistic retard.
>US beat the Russians to it by a few decades
Whatever makes you sleep at night, Eugene.

>>34622965
Fuck, my bad. Read that as 2017

>>34623197
>K-K-K
heh