How was this even allowed to be suggested, even the EAP wasn’t (if we exclude the April fools one)
8 Likes
Don’t you think EAP is redundant at this point?
While I would like it and have voted as such its very much in EAP territory. Might do as a future event vehicle but it likely wont make it to the game.
Honestly would be pretty nice
2 Likes
After re-reviewing the suggestion after the fact that the 30mm was not on the plane despite what sources say. It’s come to the realization that this plane may have never been armed and the production model was meant to get the armament but this prototype was completely unarmed.
Since the suggestion has been opened we will be providing you with 48 hours to provide evidence that this plane was armed. (not potential or could)
Please let me know if you have any questions.
If you are unable to provide sufficient evidence within 48 hours we will be moving this suggestion to the archive.
9 Likes
Peak advertising
1 Like
The model 1.44 was never meant to have a production model, that would be the on-paper model 1.42, so I don’t see the reason of keeping this thread which is for 1.44.
There’s no chance of doing much with 2 pylons even if they could carry anything.
1 Like
Couldn’t we say the same for the Su-47?
couldnt it be missiles bus like the sea vixen or sth
This is a very valid point, I believe the Su-47 sadly fall under the same category as this aircraft suggested here and the EAP, as unless there’s proof the provisions for weaponry existed (perhaps I missed something and they existed), I don’t think it can come to the game either.
1 Like
Does the prescense of functional pylons work?
Also the requirement for vehicles to be armed irl should be clearly indicated in the suggestion guidelines.
5 Likes
What the Mig144 wouldve looked like if they proceeded with ‘stealthivising’ it.
MAKS model:
Imo the dashing looks rival the felons
2 Likes
Your honour,
After further research, I acknowledge that the MiG 1.44 prototype did not have a fully functional cannons suite. However, the pylons it carried were real, capable of mounting stores, and could have been used for missiles during aerodynamic testing, although whether it could actually fire real missiles remains uncertain. The T-10-1 prototype of the Su-27 family also had no cannon or live weapon systems installed, yet it carried dummy missiles for testing purposes.
In this context, I would like to point out that I previously suggested the MiG-21PF, which historically carried only two R-3S missiles. If the MiG 1.44 were added with just two R-73s, it would arguably still be more capable than the MiG-21PF or even the MiG-21F-13 in actual combat effectiveness at its respective BR.
When I worked on this suggestion, I did so in good faith, believing the cannon was installed; by the time I confirmed otherwise, the post was already live. Nonetheless, I respectfully ask that this suggestion remain visible, as the MiG 1.44 is a fascinating and an overlooked aircraft that deserves some attention, especially since its sister project, the Su-47 Berkut, has its own published page.
Ultimately, it is up to Gaijin to decide whether or not to implement it in any form.
Thank you for considering my points.
P.S Regarding Forum Rules:
In my defense, I want to clarify that the MiG 1.44 is not a paper or fictional vehicle under these specific guidelines. It is a real, fully built prototype that flew for an official flight test. This was not an unfinished hull or an abandoned partial build: it was a complete aircraft with a functional airframe, unique composite structure, installed engines, fully operational flight controls, and actual underwing pylons for external stores. Its supposed weapons have also existed and were operational at the time on other aircraft. Although its full combat systems were never completed due to program cancellation, its structural provisions for armament and its test flight prove it was an existing prototype. For these reasons, the MiG 1.44 clearly qualifies as a valid prototype suggestion and does not violate those specific restriction.
Disclaimer: Respectfully, I am writing this purely to clarify and defend the suggestion and the effort I put into creating it. I have no intention of starting arguments with anyone, nor do I claim any authority over how this is ultimately decided. Thank you.
2 Likes
For your armament R-77’s wouldn’t make any sense in your own words you state the radar was planned so R-77’s wouldn’t work with a working radar.
Also if you can clean up your armament section to just list armament that could be mounted to the wing pylons as the internal bay was never constructed for this plane. We do agree that the wing pylons are fine but we ask that your armaments be cleaned up to what would be realistically mounted to the plane, with sources to assist that point.
For that we also ask that you provide a creditable source for said armament. As sources that state it had a 30mm or R-77’s would put into question the creditability of the source.
1 Like
Thank you for your response.
I will revise the specifications section and remove all planned weaponry, leaving only the loadout that could realistically be mounted on the two external pylons.
My reasoning is grounded in the well-documented Soviet approach to standardization, according to a source that I have listed and directly quoted, this aircraft was planned to use existing weapons.
The above image displays a similar if not identical pylon, with a name and a serial number.
Capable of mounting:
APU-470 - R-27T
APU-73 - R-73
APU-60 - R-60
More Images:
Source:
1 Like
It appears the pylons do not even have missile capability (or else the seperate missile pylon would already be attached).
I cannot even find anything about the pylons working to begin with
1 Like
As my last stand: The external pylons on the MiG 1.44 prototype were most likely installed to test wing loading and aerodynamic behavior with mock missiles in future flights, exactly as was done with the T-10-1 Flanker prototype. Given this, it would not have been practical or safe to leave them completely disconnected from the aircraft’s control system. In case of an emergency during test flights, the pilot would need the ability to jettison external loads to reduce weight and prevent accidents. This safety measure implies that, at a minimum, the pylons were wired for basic store release functionality. Therefore, the most realistic minimal payload for this prototype would be unguided bombs. Meaning the aircraft could technically be used for combat.
1 Like
This is 100% speculatory and the source is entirely unrelated.
Not to mention, your argument boils down to:
This aircraft flew with dummy weapons, for safety reasons dummy weapons need to be able to be jettisoned, therefore bombs can be dropped, therefore it is combat capable and a valid addition
So any aircraft that only ever flew with dummy weapons would be a valid addition by this logic.
5 Likes
“Ultimately, it is up to Gaijin to decide whether or not to implement it in any form.”