MiG's Project 701

[MKSheppard]

Speaking of High Performance interceptors; I still love this thing:



The [MiG] Project 7.01 (Project 701), a heavy and stealthy interceptor intended as a replacement of MiG-31 and MiG-31M, was cancelled in the mid-1980s in favor of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker. Capable of cruising at Mach 2.2 at 17,000 meters (55,000 ft) for 7,000 to 11,000 km (4,300 to 6,800 miles); intended to defend the boarders of Russia from the US CRUISE MISSILE SWARM.

[Vympel]

The [MiG] Project 7.01 (Project 701), a heavy and stealthy interceptor intended as a replacement of MiG-31 and MiG-31M, was cancelled in the mid-1980s in favor of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker. Capable of cruising at Mach 2.2 at 17,000 meters (55,000 ft) for 7,000 to 11,000 km (4,300 to 6,800 miles); intended to defend the boarders of Russia from the US CRUISE MISSILE SWARM.

Project 701 wasn't canceled in favour of the Su-27, AFAIK. The Su-27, MiG-31 and MiG-29 all belong to the same generation after all. The Su-27 could never replace the MiG-31/MiG-31M, though it was intended to replace other PVO interceptors, like the Su-15. It was canceled because they had no money. That picture's awesome though - I haven't seen a better picture of the Project 701 concept.

I like how someone inserted that long-range AAM prototype (last seen on the new Su-35 prototypes, and almost certain to arm the PAK FA)

Here's hoping they resurrect Project 701 eventually. The MiG-31BM upgrade is just a stop-gap, after all.

[MKSheppard]

I like how someone inserted that long-range AAM prototype (last seen on the new Su-35 prototypes, and almost certain to arm the PAK FA)

KS-172; long range missile with 400 km range on large RCS, low manouvering targets like AWACS, tankers, and maritime patrol aircraft.

[K. A. Pital]

Shep, the 701 would not be stealthy at all I'm afraid. The Su-27 was never to replace the MiG-31. You got stuff really wrong here...

I haven't seen a better picture of the Project 701 concept.

How about Gatial's render?

[MKSheppard]

Shep, the 701 would not be stealthy at all I'm afraid.

It would have a reduced RCS compared to earlier PVO heavy interceptors though. It does seem that PAK-FA is going down the same route; put some slight RCS reductions to reduce the chances of "cheap" pickups at long ranges; and instead fly fast and high as a way of gaining advantage over the previous generation of fighters.

[erik_t]

Shep, the 701 would not be stealthy at all I'm afraid. The Su-27 was never to replace the MiG-31. You got stuff really wrong here...

I suggest you consider the way the cockpit shields the engine inlets from a low/medium frontal aspect, and the complete lack of internal corners on the lower surface, as well as the lack of external weapons carriage. Then by all means explain to us how this is not a substantial RCS improvement. Because really, I'm quite curious and would love for you to enlighten me.

[K. A. Pital]

It would have a reduced RCS compared to earlier PVO heavy interceptors though

Su-3X already have reduced RCS measures. They are not the same as stealth. This 70-ton monster would be anything but stealthy. It might have some slight RCS advantages over MiG-31, but they'd be marginal. It didn't really need stealth either since it's task as a long-range interceptor was to launch the KS-172 or similar missile and then bugger off.

It does seem that PAK-FA is going down the same route; put some slight RCS reductions to reduce the chances of "cheap" pickups at long ranges; and instead fly fast and high as a way of gaining advantage over the previous generation of fighters.

PAK FA is either a fully-fledged VLO aircraft (stated RCS of 0,05 msq IIRC) or it's pointless to make this plane. Su-3X already have reduced RCS coating and other measures.

I suggest you consider the way the cockpit shields the engine inlets from a low/medium frontal aspect

This is a fanboy drawing. I wonder why did you take it that the cockpit would be shielding the intakes?

The civilian airliner which was made in the 701s hull as an attempt to get funding has intakes right above the cockpit fully open.

Because really, I'm quite curious and would love for you to enlighten me.

Consider yourself enlightened.

[erik_t]

Yeah, and look at how nose-low the ground attitude is, and the fact that 7.01 would probably be attacking from ~60,000ft

You can do better than that.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, and look at how nose-low the ground attitude is, and the fact that 7.01 would probably be attacking from ~60,000ft

The 701 would be attacking ground?

You can do better than that.

VLO or LO were not in the requirements for that plane's design.

The model of izd 701. That hardly correlates with the fanboy drawings of the 701. Not to mention that the characteristics of 701, outside of it's mass of 70 tons and required top speed of 2500 kph are not even known.

Pjotr Butovskiy's drawings of the MiG-701 mutated into a LO aircraft under the pen of Russian fanboys (and I wouldn't put any trust into Butowskiy himself either).

[erik_t]

Yeah, and look at how nose-low the ground attitude is, and the fact that 7.01 would probably be attacking from ~60,000ft

The 701 would be attacking ground?

Because you're a non-native speaker I'm going to stay a little patient. The aircraft sits on its landing gear with a distinct nose-down angle. This is unrelated to the angle it would adopt in flight. Meanwhile, if this was indeed to whack OMG CRUISE MISSILE CARRIERS, targets might well be B-1s at 1000ft. Therefore, your argument based on the picture you posted is doubly flawed.

VLO or LO were not in the requirements for that plane's design.
http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/mikoy ... es/701.gif
The model of izd 701. That hardly correlates with the fanboy drawings of the 701. Not to mention that the characteristics of 701, outside of it's mass of 70 tons and required top speed of 2500 kph are not even known.

Pjotr Butovskiy's drawings of the MiG-701 mutated into a LO aircraft under the pen of Russian fanboys (and I wouldn't put any trust into Butowskiy himself either).

Regardless of whether or not low RCS was a specified requirement, the aircraft has a number of low-observable characteristics from the relevant (nose-on) direction.

[K. A. Pital]

Meanwhile, if this was indeed to whack OMG CRUISE MISSILE CARRIERS

It was also to "whack" cruise missiles themselves and that is why it's supercruise range was pegged at 2500 km (then-projected limit for Tomahawks). It was also to have a new radar that could pick out cruise missiles. But all that is speculation at best, fantasy at worst.

B-1s at 1000ft

A strategic bomber with a 60,000 f ceiling will be cruising at 1000 feet burning fuel and making itself vulnerable to a fucking AK-630 armed missile boat? You kidding me?

Regardless of whether or not low RCS was a specified requirement, the aircraft has a number of low-observable characteristics from the relevant (nose-on) direction.

"Regardless"? Erik, nigh all drawings of the 701 are pure distilled speculation. The "all-internal bay" is likewise nowhere to be mentioned in any description of the project, and is a result of fanboyism as well.

[erik_t]

Glad you completely ignored the bit about your asinine angle-on-the-ground part. You're either being dishonest or retarded and are therefore no longer worth my time.

[MKSheppard]

A strategic bomber with a 60,000 f ceiling will be cruising at 1000 feet burning fuel and making itself vulnerable to a fucking AK-630 armed missile boat? You kidding me?

Or even lower. Witness B-1B.

[K. A. Pital]

Glad you completely ignored the bit about your asinine angle-on-the-ground part

The plane is going to be constantly ascending? Or only attacking on an ascending vector? Are you being moronic as well? On all other vectors, the intakes would not be covered by the hull and will be exposed. I spoke nothing about ground angle. I only noted that the cockpit does not in fact cover the intakes.

Let me guess:
1) cockpit covering intakes - only on fanboy drawings.
2) all-internal bay - only on fanboy drawings.
3) LO was not, to the extent of common knowledge, a requirement for the project
4) details of the project are unknown and drawings are speculative

All your points about the 701 being a LO aircraft are based on faulty presumptions, treating fanboy drawings as absolute fact and ignoring the lack of evidence we have about the project. Nice talking to ye.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know whether to laugh or sigh at the fact that there is now a heated debate on whether a particular imaginary airplane which never left the drawing board is stealthy, based on a drawing which may or may not have any relation to any actual work that was ever done on this project.

[tim31]

I don't know whether to laugh or sigh at the fact that there is now a heated debate on whether a particular imaginary airplane which never left the drawing board is stealthy, based on a drawing which may or may not have any relation to any actual work that was ever done on this project.

I'm leaning towards cry, because I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to know whether to believe the glamorous commie or the motherfucking aerospace engineer(his self description).

[K. A. Pital]

Erik appears to be correct with regard to that drawing

The drawing is pure speculation, and the intakes would be not shielded from anything flying at the same level. The altitude ceiling of the 701 is not known. Presence or absence of internal bay is not known. The presence or absence of canards is not known. Hell, almost nothing is known and people think of a LO or VLO aircraft?

This is hardly surprising since the Su-27 also sits considerably more nose-down on its landing gear than it does in flight.

Su-27 is relevant to the MiG-701 how?

[MKSheppard]

The drawing is pure speculation, and the intakes would be not shielded from anything flying at the same level.

We know that they planned for at least Mach 2 cruise at 55,000 feet (17 km); that's significantly above virtually everything in the US arsenal; because according to regulations, you have to wear a pressure suit above 50kft, and pressure suits left the USAF inventory (other than for SR-71 and U-2) pretty fast. It's only with the F-22 g-suit which can function as a partial pressure suit, that we've regained regular above 50kft operations.

Presence or absence of internal bay is not known.

The design parameters of supersonic cruise necissitate internal weapons, unless you've got real crazy, like ultra-tiny weapons, or they're carried in a huge aerodynamic droppaple pod ala B-58.

Hell, almost nothing is known and people think of a LO or VLO aircraft?

The fact that it would cruise above virtually everything, plus in all the depictions, it has top-mounted engine intakes set very far back; plus the requirements of supersonic cruise neccissate design features which would result naturally in reduced RCS.

[Starglider]

The drawing is pure speculation

Then you should not have introduced it in the first place. Posting it and then whining about people actually analysing it is moronic.

Su-27 is relevant to the MiG-701 how?

It's a well known aircraft that adopts the same solution to minimising undercarriage weight, so no one should still be assuming that cruise attitudes are the same as ground attitudes, even in modern aircraft. You have to look at the aerodynamics to ascertain the former, if you do not have an in-flight reference.

[MKSheppard]

Then you should not have introduced it in the first place. Posting it and then whining about people actually analysing it is moronic.

Um, actually, I posted it. You must have assumed that since it was a MiG Prototype, Stas musta posted it.

[Starglider]

Um, actually, I posted it. You must have assumed that since it was a MiG Prototype, Stas musta posted it.

I was referring to the three-view airliner version Stas posted - in a counterproductive attempt to refute Erik's original argument. Your in flight concepts don't show landing gear so can't be the basis of a ground attitude vs flight attitude argument, though they do seem to show the nose higher and the intakes partially masked, which is how the argument started in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

Um, actually, I posted it. You must have assumed that since it was a MiG Prototype, Stas musta posted it.

I was referring to the three-view airliner version Stas posted, because (I assume) that was what Erik was basing his argument on. Your in flight concepts don't show landing gear so can't be the basis of a ground attitude vs flight attitude argument, though now that you mention it, they do offer slight additional support to the fact that it would cruise with the nose higher.

I must have missed the part where Stas said he was posting them for analysis rather than just because they looked nicer than the picture Shep posted. The idea that it's somehow stupid for him to dismiss their use in analysis by virtue of posting them is silly.

[K. A. Pital]

I used the airliner drawing just to demonstrate that there is no specific structural cover for the intakes. Admitting that said cover is fully dependent on the angle of the plane and it's position is enough evidence for my statement that the engineering solution did not offer "shielding of engines by the cockpit", unless you want to rephrase that as "covering the intakes by the HULL from BELOW" which, well damn, is the whole point of having intakes in the upper part of the plane and does NOT merit a special point about oh-so-smart cockpit design.

[Vympel]

Topic split to History Forum. I thought this was the most appropriate place given it's a late 1980s Soviet point of interest.

[K. A. Pital]

Thanks, I was also going to split it here. Starglider's post is left out though...

We know that they planned for at least Mach 2 cruise at 55,000 feet (17 km)

Where from do you know that?