3 new Mikoyan combat aircraft models shown at MAKS 2021

1.42 MFI we missed you, you had a makeover :)

Maybe Chengdu provided design assistance?

(that's a joke)

Photos (c) Muxel
 

Attachments

  • E6ufKz4WYA0dtJx.jpg
    E6ufKz4WYA0dtJx.jpg
    703.2 KB · Views: 432
  • E6ufMEMWYAM1Eh5.jpg
    E6ufMEMWYAM1Eh5.jpg
    708.3 KB · Views: 411
  • E6ufOYbWYCQIy8N.jpg
    E6ufOYbWYCQIy8N.jpg
    715.4 KB · Views: 377
  • E6ufOYbWYCQIy8N.jpg
    E6ufOYbWYCQIy8N.jpg
    715.4 KB · Views: 350
  • E6ufbaPWQAA6cht.jpg
    E6ufbaPWQAA6cht.jpg
    564.5 KB · Views: 368
  • E6ufcapWYBQ5f_U.jpg
    E6ufcapWYBQ5f_U.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 374
  • E6ufd7gWYBYdvyt.jpg
    E6ufd7gWYBYdvyt.jpg
    958 KB · Views: 375
  • E6uffVlWYCkAb00.jpg
    E6uffVlWYCkAb00.jpg
    478 KB · Views: 381
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
The offerings from the MiG team

fxIdSHc.jpg
 
Last edited:
helmutkohl said:
I was wondering what would happen to MiG!

you can see some of the MiG 1.42 heritage in that model, especially the rear.

question. are canards better for carrier landings?
Click to expand...

I wonder if MiG will succeed with the shipborne fighter though, I would think that Sukhoi would put forward the LTS as a possible naval fighter and end up with a fly off like what happened with the MiG-29K and Su-27K and we all know what happened there.
 
helmutkohl said:
heres hoping India dumps their new twin engined Tejas aircraft (thats reallly a new design) and buys this instead.
Click to expand...


Indeed, hope is always the last what dies!

A few years ago at Zhuhai 2018 during a small "private" lecture in a small group, Piotr Butowski talked about the fading away into insignificance of the Russian military aviation industry and predicted something like a swansong! Maybe this is one last final rearing up to prevent the inevitable end?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that light multi function plane looks more doable than the carrier one, from a financial perspective.
 
I can't see Russia forking out the money now to develop a bespoke 5.5Gen fighter for one carrier, the R&D cost returns wouldn't be worth it and the existence of the Su-57 would rule out a land-based version to amortise those costs.

The light fighter looks interesting, like a single-seat Yak-130 with reheat for transonic performance. Probably clashes a fair bit with the LTS now though and the single-seat Yak derivatives went nowhere.

The UAV looks interesting, what is the blue ventral pallet? A missile or some kind of recon pod? Or even a refuelling pod?

I assume UAC most have some overarching portfolio plan? Would seem non-sensical to pit Sukhoi and MiG against each other in the same fields.
 
Sorry, but not gonna happen. Too late. Sukhoi has full initiative, in every single niche. It must be sound cruel, but MiG is dead, even as a development group under UAC.

Scale models production is their only future.
 
helmutkohl said:
that light multi function plane looks more doable than the carrier one, from a financial perspective.
Click to expand...

Doable, but redundant. It appears to have a similar role/weight class to Sukhoi's latest offering, while almost certainly being much less further along in development. UAC would be foolish to throw funding towards such a project, and no foreign customers are likely to show much interest with the LTS stealing the show before the convention has even opened. That and the naval fighter & drone with no current viable customers leads me to believe that MiG is currently just throwing out a bunch of underdeveloped concepts in order to avoid having to showcase a derivative of their 4th gen fighter when their rival is peddling not one but two fifth gen products. (Three if you count S-70, although I don't think that one is being offered up for export quite yet.)
 
Last edited:
ADC411 said:
helmutkohl said:
that light multi function plane looks more doable than the carrier one, from a financial perspective.
Click to expand...

Doable, but redundant. It appears to have a similar role/wait class to Sukhoi's latest offering, while almost certainly being much less further along in development. UAC would be foolish to throw funding towards such a project, and no foreign customers are likely to show much interest with the LTS stealing the show before the convention has even opened. That and the naval fighter & drone with no current viable customers leads me to believe that MiG is currently just throwing out a bunch of underdeveloped concepts in order to avoid having to showcase a derivative of their 4th gen fighter when their rival is peddling not one but two fifth gen products. (Three if you count S-70, although I don't think that one is being offered up for export quite yet.)
Click to expand...

I agree, all these Russian design houses likely won't all secure funding in this day and age and MiG seems the first to fade away.
that said, that light multi function plane looks like it has a single bay and is quite small, compared to the Checkmate that potentially has 1 bay and 2 small AAM bays.

could be cheaper and find some market... at least compared to the carrier plane.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
My reading is the MiG designs are all Klimov RD-33 derivative powered, so the lightweight design is significantly smaller than the "Checkmate".

I agree, all these Russian design houses likely won't all secure funding in this day and age and MiG seems the first to fade away.
that said, that light multi function plane looks like it has a single bay and is quite small, compared to the Checkmate that potentially has 1 bay and 2 small AAM bays.

could be cheaper and find some market... at least compared to the carrier plane.
Click to expand...

You both appear to be right. Still though, that raises the question of just how much fuel such a small craft can carry once you account for the space taken by the internal bay. You can of course offset this issue somewhat by using the bay to carry a fuel tank, but if you have to do so to squeeze any useful range out of the thing, then it becomes a self defeating feature. So in the end, it would have to be a seriously short-legged platform. I suppose the real question is: Which nations are in need of a cheap LO plane with a small payload capacity and even smaller effective range?
 
ADC411 said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
My reading is the MiG designs are all Klimov RD-33 derivative powered, so the lightweight design is significantly smaller than the "Checkmate".

I agree, all these Russian design houses likely won't all secure funding in this day and age and MiG seems the first to fade away.
that said, that light multi function plane looks like it has a single bay and is quite small, compared to the Checkmate that potentially has 1 bay and 2 small AAM bays.

could be cheaper and find some market... at least compared to the carrier plane.
Click to expand...

You both appear to be right. Still though, that raises the question of just how much fuel such a small craft can carry once you account for the space taken by the internal bay. You can of course offset this issue somewhat by using the bay to carry a fuel tank, but if you have to do so to squeeze any useful range out of the thing, then it becomes a self defeating feature. So in the end, it would have to be a seriously short-legged platform. I suppose the real question is: Which nations are in need of a cheap LO plane with a small payload capacity and even smaller effective range?
Click to expand...

this goes back to a theoretical question I've always been asking..

how small can a LO combat plane be?
it needs a bay, and some power for all its electronics. Its been argued that a Gripen/FA-50/ even F-16 sized LO aircraft may not be possible.
needs to be a mid-weight or heavier
 
helmutkohl said:
ADC411 said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
My reading is the MiG designs are all Klimov RD-33 derivative powered, so the lightweight design is significantly smaller than the "Checkmate".

I agree, all these Russian design houses likely won't all secure funding in this day and age and MiG seems the first to fade away.
that said, that light multi function plane looks like it has a single bay and is quite small, compared to the Checkmate that potentially has 1 bay and 2 small AAM bays.

could be cheaper and find some market... at least compared to the carrier plane.
Click to expand...

You both appear to be right. Still though, that raises the question of just how much fuel such a small craft can carry once you account for the space taken by the internal bay. You can of course offset this issue somewhat by using the bay to carry a fuel tank, but if you have to do so to squeeze any useful range out of the thing, then it becomes a self defeating feature. So in the end, it would have to be a seriously short-legged platform. I suppose the real question is: Which nations are in need of a cheap LO plane with a small payload capacity and even smaller effective range?
Click to expand...

this goes back to a theoretical question I've always been asking..

how small can a LO combat plane be?
it needs a bay, and some power for all its electronics. Its been argued that a Gripen/FA-50/ even F-16 sized LO aircraft may not be possible.
needs to be a mid-weight or heavier
Click to expand...
That deserves its own topic. I think its possible with innovative bay designs and modern, smaller weapons.
 
Or you can fly an ucas aside... That potentially solves a lot of problems.
Short range and a couple of aam on-board, internally and all the bulky things inside the UCAS wb.
 
Does ANPK imeni A.I. Mikoyana still exist as a distinct entity within OJSC United Aircraft Corporation?
 
The lightweight fighter seems only to have room for fuel in the wings and maybe the tail. Very large weapons bay.

Photos (c) Muxel.
 

Attachments

  • E6uegXxWYAsrd64.jpg
    E6uegXxWYAsrd64.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 336
  • E6uehz7WYAsyh3z.jpg
    E6uehz7WYAsyh3z.jpg
    476.5 KB · Views: 278
  • E6ueir5WUAE8BkE.jpg
    E6ueir5WUAE8BkE.jpg
    619.1 KB · Views: 258
  • E6ueOBkWYBEYWZF.jpg
    E6ueOBkWYBEYWZF.jpg
    676.3 KB · Views: 253
  • E6uePNDWYBQbzGJ.jpg
    E6uePNDWYBQbzGJ.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 280
  • E6ueQ55WUAEj5zg.jpg
    E6ueQ55WUAEj5zg.jpg
    660.7 KB · Views: 294
  • E6ueSCAX0AA4e5g.jpg
    E6ueSCAX0AA4e5g.jpg
    712.8 KB · Views: 385
looks like about the size of the L-15.
with that center line in the bay, im guessing it can carry only 1 missile in each bay, so 2 missiles total.
 
Assuming the lines on the fuselage side indicate the landing gear bay it's going to be pretty crowded in there.
 
The more I look at it, the more I'm certain that thing simply isn't viable in it's proposed configuration. There's just no room.

I suspect that if it were to ever actually materialize, it would be in a form reminiscent of the current iteration of the Korean KF-21. Keep the LO shaping, delete the weapons bay, and carry weapons/extra fuel externally in stealthy pods.

A less ambitious, but significantly more practical solution, and more likely to actually see the light of day.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The lightweight fighter seems only to have room for fuel in the wings and maybe the tail. Very large weapons bay.

Photos (c) Muxel.
Click to expand...

Looks like a design from me to MiG in 2020,I told them they should
pay attention to a market of single engined fighter,and they lost many
of their benefits after MiG-21,but mine has a new two ideas and anther
third one invented before but not used in practically.
 
Last edited:
I can only assume these are being presented for the Indian Navy, who are clearly trying to expand their carrier operations in the current decades, and face a problem with their current carrier aircraft fleet. They are rather displeased with the MiG-29K and are looking for a replacement, with the Rafale and Super Hornet being touted. However, a Russian contender would make sense, and MiG will definitely try to bolster relations with India.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom