Comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 (photo)

Competition always drives technological progress. In the Soviet Union, despite the planned economy and the state monopoly on the means of production, competition also took place, though not in all sectors. Design bureaus that developed defense systems mercilessly fought for primacy and the right to be called the best. Examples of such competition are the best interceptors that entered the arsenal of the Soviet Army at about the same time, in the 80s, namely the MiG-29 and Su-27. The photo of the aircraft suggests that the uninitiated in the intricacies of the aircraft industry of citizens think about their similarity. In fact, they represent different classes of fighter jets. Su-27 is a heavy interceptor, and MiG-29 is light. And in a sense, each of them is the best.

The story of two classes of fighter jets

Already in the fifties, there was a separation of interceptors into two categories. One of them in the event of war was to fight in maneuvering air battles, called by 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 intended to destroy strategic bombers and missiles of the enemy. It required high speed, maximum ceiling, powerful long-range weapons and effective airborne radar. Heavy interceptors captured the target and struck at it over long distances. They were created and adopted 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 did not have to meet in the sky. Quite the opposite. For example, two very different opponents came together in the sky of Vietnam, the light and maneuverable MiG-21 and the heavy F-4 Phantom, and the pilots of each of them sought 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 leading countries is usually 3 to 7. It happens that 2 to 8, and even 1 to 9. But more expensive and technologically sophisticated vehicles, that is, heavy interceptors, constitute a quantitative minority of the military aircraft fleet. There is a logical explanation for this. Firstly, most combat missions do not require excessive technical superiority. Secondly, it’s easier to find a foreign buyer on a cheap and efficient plane than on an expensive and complicated one. Not all states of the world are concerned about deterring the nuclear threat, and they need a military air fleet, sometimes even just for status reasons, such as Switzerland, for example. And not all countries have a defense budget that allows them to purchase expensive “toys”, which also require special training for pilots and expensive maintenance.

Given that not all states need a heavy interceptor, and knowing the general statistics, we can conclude that out of every hundred interceptors flying now in the earth's atmosphere, ninety-three are light.

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

Our eternal struggle of the good with the best

In the late 70s, two Soviet aviation design bureaus 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 said its best flight performance, a powerful airborne radar and a large payload. The MiG-29 was notable for its lower cost, unpretentiousness, and the ability to take off and land on poorly prepared aerodromes, while also having very good performance characteristics. It would be logical to launch both aircraft in a series, giving a quantitative advantage to the Mikoyanites, but the Soviet Ministry of Defense decided to build more Sukhoi. Comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 was carried out on formal grounds, without taking into account the practical experience of using machines of various classes. General Designer Mikhail Petrovich Simonov managed to convince the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense in the unconditional superiority of his aircraft.

Then there was a general restructuring, and there was less money in the state treasury, which forced the government to significantly cut defense spending. MiG faded into the background, in the 90s the program received half the funding than Su. Mikoyanovtsy needed to do something to save their offspring from complete oblivion.

Fight over Lipetsk

The leadership of the Mig Design Bureau, represented by General Designer R. A. Belyakov, insisted on the demonstration training battle. MP Simonov objected, arguing that everything is clear already, “Dry” is better, and that’s all. But Mikoyanovtsev supported S. Askanov, who led the Lipetsk Center for the combat use of aviation, and the battles took place. To Simonov’s chagrin, the comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 showed in practice a clear underestimation of the competing aircraft. In eight fights out of ten, the 29th won, and at all distances. The powerful Sukhoi locator did not give 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 the acceptable angle of attack for him. The results for the Su-27 were the best, but it was not always possible to get away from persistent and successful attempts to get on its tail. Comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 was declared not entirely correct due to the best flight training of the first pilot. So this experiment did not lead to any fundamental decisions.

War in africa

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

Reasons for the defeat of Eritrean pilots

One could conclude that the Su-27 was completely superior, if not for two significant circumstances. In two cases, led by Eritrean couples, after launching missiles by Ethiopian planes, turned around and chose to flee. And in all three episodes, the winners were separated from death in a matter of seconds. Ethiopians, trained in Soviet flight 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 turned out to be bolder. It is difficult to judge how objective the practical combat comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 turned out to be. The characteristics of airplanes do not always directly affect the result; there are often cases in history when a well-armed enemy is defeated by a brave enemy.

Germans

German Air Force pilots had the opportunity to see the high quality of Soviet aircraft, not only during World War II, but also after 1989. They are accustomed to piloting very good vehicles, armed with NATO countries (F / A-18A, F-16A, Tornado, etc.), with characteristics corresponding to the level of Su-27. MiG-29 after the union of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic was adopted by the Luftwaffe. German pilots were delighted with its handling, maneuverability, cockpit ergonomics and other qualities, making the plane a pilot's favorite. Even now they are part of the Bundesrespublic Air Force. It is possible that other types of our interceptors would be highly appreciated by NATO specialists, but historical realities did not give them the opportunity to compare the MiG-29 and Su-27. Photos of the Soviet aircraft with Maltese crosses on the planes and fuselage represent the curious inconsistency of modernity.

Objective parameters

Large-scale clashes between armies that are armed exclusively with Soviet and Russian equipment have not yet happened, and this is good. Consequently, there are no objective statistics that make it possible to judge the superiority of a particular airplane model. Nothing, a comparison of the Su-27 and MiG-29 can be made using the available flight technical characteristics of the two interceptors. The main parameters of the two aircraft are shown in the table.

In terms of mass indicators, dimensions, speed, combat use radius and ceiling, the Su-27 has an advantage. Comparison of the MiG-29 with this aircraft in terms of rate of climb reveals the superiority of a lighter interceptor in close maneuverable combat. Both samples are built according to a twin-engine scheme, which indicates their high survivability and reliability.

Cabins

There is another important point by which to compare the MiG-29 and Su-27. A photo of the pilot's cabs reveals their almost complete identity. Despite fierce competition between design bureaus, development engineers were able to find a common language in the interests of domestic combat aircraft. Pilot training can be carried out more successfully, and retraining will be reduced to the assimilation of the behavior of the aircraft in critical conditions. The similar arrangement of controls and controls has a positive effect on the export attractiveness of both types of aircraft.

Further development

At present, the comparison of the MiG-29 and Su-27 does not make much sense. These aircraft are being replaced by their modifications, including deeply revised versions that have their own designations. The next step to improve the MiG-29 platform was the MiG-33 (or MiG-29M), featuring updated aerodynamics, an increased fuel tank and the HOTAS control system. An even more modern modification is the MiG-35.

KB Sukhoi also 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 are to be compared.