Comparison of Mig-29 and Su-27 (photo)

Competition always stimulates technological progress. In the Soviet Union, despite the planned nature of the economy and the state monopoly over the means of production, competition also took place, albeit not in all branches. KB, who developed defense systems, mercilessly fought for primacy and the right to be called the best. Examples of this competition are the best interceptors that came into service with the Soviet Army at about the same time in the 1980s, namely the MiG-29 and Su-27. The airplane photo brings the uninitiated in the subtleties of aircraft building of citizens to the idea of their similarity. In fact, they represent different classes of fighters. The Su-27 is a heavy interceptor, and the MiG-29 is light. And in a sense, each of them is the best.

The history of two classes of fighters

Already in the fifties there was a division of interceptors into two categories. One of them in the event of war was to fight in maneuverable air battles, called pilots "dog fights" or "carousels." In this situation small fighters with a small mass and a large wing area could count on success. The second class of interceptors was designed to destroy strategic bombers and enemy missiles. It required high speed, maximum ceiling, powerful long-range armament and effective airborne radar. Heavy interceptors seized the target and inflicted a blow on it at long distances. They were created and adopted in the armed forces in the countries possessing nuclear weapons and claiming regional or global leadership.

Which is better - light or heavy?

But all this did not mean that these two classes of fighters would not have to meet in the sky. Quite the opposite. For example, in the sky of Vietnam two very dissimilar opponents came together, a light and maneuverable MiG-21 and a heavy F-4 "Phantom", and pilots of each of them tried to realize the constructive advantages of their aircraft, depending on the situation.

The ratio of heavy and light fighters in the arsenal of the air forces of the leading countries is usually 3 to 7. It happens that both 2 to 8 and even 1 to 9. But more expensive and technologically sophisticated machines, that is heavy interceptors, constitute a quantitative minority of the military aviation fleet. This is a perfectly logical explanation. First, most combat missions do not require excessive technical superiority. Secondly, it is easier to find a foreign buyer for a cheap and efficient aircraft than for an expensive and complicated one. Not all states of the world are concerned about deterring a nuclear threat, and they need a military air fleet, sometimes even just from status considerations, like Switzerland, for example. And not all countries have a defense budget to buy expensive "toys", which, moreover, need special training for pilots and expensive maintenance.

Given that not all states need a heavy interceptor, and knowing the general statistics, it can be concluded that out of every 100 interceptors flying now in the earth's atmosphere, ninety-three are lungs.

Even a cursory comparison of MiG-29 and Su-27 leads to the conclusion that the Mikoyan fighter has an export potential higher than that of Sukhoi.

Our eternal struggle of good with even better

In the late 1970s, two Soviet aviation battleships fought to ensure that their fighters received a defense order. Each of them had its own advantages and, of course, disadvantages. In favor of the Su-27 spoke its best flight performance, a powerful on-board radar and a large payload. The MiG-29 was less costly, unpretentious, able to take off and sits on poorly trained airfields, while also having very good LTX. It would be logical to launch both planes in the series, giving the Mikoyanites a quantitative advantage, but the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to build more "Sukhikh". Comparison of MiG-29 and Su-27 was carried out on formal grounds, without taking into account the practical experience of using machines of different classes. General Designer Mikhail Petrovich Simonov managed to convince the leadership of the USSR Defense Ministry of the absolute superiority of his aircraft.

Then there was a general restructuring, and there was less money in the state treasury, which forced the government to substantially cut defense spending. The MiG faded into the background, in the 1990s the program received twice less funding than Su. The Mikoyans had to do something to save their offspring from complete oblivion.

Fight over Lipetsk

The leadership of KB "Mig" in the person of the General Designer R. A. Belyakov insisted on the demonstrative training battle. MP Simonov objected, arguing that everything was already clear, "Dry" is better, that's all. But the Mikoyanovites were supported by S. Askanov, who was in charge of the Lipetsk Center for the Combat Use of Aviation, and the fighting took place. To the annoyance of Simonov, the comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 showed in practice a clear underestimation of the competing machine. In eight battles out of ten the victory was won by the 29th, and at all distances. The powerful Sukhoi locator did not give any advantages due to the smaller geometric dimensions of the MiG. Simonov managed to convince the leadership to introduce unilateral restrictive conditions for the opponent, reducing for him the allowable angle of attack. The results for the Su-27 became the best, but it was not always possible to get away from persistent and successful attempts to sit on his tail. Comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 was declared not entirely correct due to the better flight training of the pilot of the first. So this experiment did not lead to any fundamental decisions.

The war in Africa

As you might expect, the MiG-29 found foreign buyers. He was in the ranks of the Air Force of Iraq, India, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and many more countries who had a chance to test it in the case. The political situation in the world was changing rapidly, and at times the same type of aircraft was in the service of the opposing sides. After the disengagement of Eritrea from Ethiopia, a territorial conflict arose between the two countries. Then, in 1999, and had to fight Su-27 against the MiG-29. It is known of three air battles that took place on February 21, 25 and 26 and ended with the victory of Ethiopian pilots who shot down three Eritrean MiGs (one was not counted, however, having received damage, the base, according to intelligence, did not return).

The reasons for the defeat of Eritrean pilots

It could be concluded that the Su-27 was completely superior, if not for two significant circumstances. In two cases, the Eritrean slave pairs after the launch of the missiles by Ethiopian aircraft turned and preferred to flee. And in all three episodes the winners were separated from death in a matter of seconds. Ethiopians trained in Soviet flying schools and having the best qualifications, were able to realize the constructive advantages of their interceptors to a greater extent than Eritrean pilots. In addition, they were also more daring. It is difficult to judge how objective was the practical combat comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27. The characteristics of aircraft do not always directly affect the result, in the history of cases where a well-armed enemy is defeated by a brave opponent is not uncommon.

Germans

The air force pilots of Germany had the opportunity to see the high quality of Soviet aircraft not only during the Great Patriotic War, but also after 1989. They are used to piloting very good vehicles in the arsenal of NATO countries (F / A-18A, F-16A, Tornado, etc.), with characteristics corresponding to the level of Su-27. MiG-29 after the unification of the FRG and the GDR was adopted for the Luftwaffe. German pilots came to full delight from his manageability, maneuverability, ergonomics of the cabin and other qualities, making the aircraft a pilot's favorite. They are now in the Air Force of the Bundespublik. It is possible that other types of our interceptors would be highly appreciated by NATO experts, but historical realities prevented them from comparing MiG-29 and Su-27. Photos of the Soviet aircraft with Maltese crosses on the planes and fuselage personify the curious inconsistency of modernity.

Objective parameters

Large-scale clashes between the armies, which are armed with exclusively Soviet and Russian equipment, have not yet happened, and this is good. Therefore, there is no objective statistics that allows one to judge the superiority of one or another model of the aircraft. Nothing, a comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 can be made, using the available flight performance of the two interceptors. The main parameters of the two aircraft are given in the table.

In terms of mass parameters, dimensions, speed, radius of combat use and ceiling, the Su-27 has an advantage. Comparison of the MiG-29 with this aircraft in terms of climb rate reveals the superiority of an easier interceptor in near maneuver combat. Both samples are built on a two-motor scheme, which indicates their high survivability and reliability.

Cabins

There is another important point by which to compare the MiG-29 and Su-27. The photo of the pilot cabins reveals almost complete identity. Despite the tough competition between the design bureaus, the development engineers were able to find a common language in the interests of domestic combat aviation. Training pilots can be made more successfully, and retraining is reduced to the mastery of the behavior of the aircraft in critical regimes. The similarity in the location of controls and controls has a positive effect on the export attractiveness of both types of aircraft.

Further development

Currently, the comparison of MiG-29 and Su-27 does not make much sense anymore. These planes are replaced by their modifications, including deep revised versions, which have their own designations. The next step to improve the MiG-29 platform was the MiG-33 (or MiG-29M), featuring updated aerodynamics, an enlarged fuel tank and a HOTAS control system. Even more modern modification - MiG-35.

The Sukhoi Design Bureau, too, does not stand still. Su-34 and Su-35 presented the further development of the T-10 platform, the ancestor of which was the Su-27. The results of these large-scale works must be compared.