Best post-MiG 21 single engined Soviet/Russian fighter or bomber?

[Admiral Beez]

Is there any fixed wing, single engined combat aircraft made in the USSR or Russia after the MiG 21 that's any good? The Sukhoi Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-27 come to mind.

I believe the Sukhoi Su-75 is supposed to be single engined, if it progresses past napkinwaffe.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Naaah, the Su-17 wasn't any good. Besides, it was too early - 3D view of a Sukhoj "product R" (Su-17 of the 1949, designation reused):

 

[Texnuk]

Hello everyone. What's wrong with him if he's never taken to the sky? After the crash of the Su-15, flight tests of the Su-17 were banned. In November 1949, the Sukhoi Design Bureau was disbanded. The prototype, which has never been lifted into the sky, was transported to the M. Gromov Flight Research Institute for ground tests, in particular, checking the nose of the fuselage. Next, the device was checked for stability, exposing it to shelling from air cannons.
More Su-7, Su-15.

 

[bf109xxl]

The Soviets used the same designation for different aircraft - e.g., Il-18, Il-20, Il-22, MiG-9, Su-7, Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, Su-17, Tu-4, Tu-10, Yak-3, Yak-25, Yak-30, Yak-50.
The Su-17 (the second with this designation, first flight of the prototype S-23-1 in 1967) was the further development of the Su-7B with a variable-sweep wing. A very emotional discussion between the pilots of the Su-17 and the MiG-27 about the overall performance of their aircraft still continues - Su had better flight performance whereas MiG could use more capable guided weapons.
The best single-engine Soviet fighter was undoubtedly the MiG-23ML(D).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

From what I've read, the MiG 23/27 were dogs, good at pencil-line speed, but unable to follow almost anything in a turn and liable to stall out mos' skosh.

 

[bf109xxl]

From what I've read, the MiG 23/27 were dogs, good at pencil-line speed, but unable to follow almost anything in a turn and liable to stall out mos' skosh.

This is rather a misconception.
1. The MiG-23 was a fighter (except for the BN version), whereas the MiG-27 was a pure strike aircraft.
2. The MiG-23 versions differed significantly in flight performance. The MiG-23MLD was one of the latest modifications of the MiG-23. Until the appearance of the MiG-29, it was the only Soviet fighter capable of maneuvering air combat with 4th generation fighters. There was a squadron at the Mary airbase in Central Asia, which was used to test the combat readiness of fighter regiments of the Soviet Air Force, according to some reports, the pilots of this squadron on MiG-23MLDs (probably the most experienced in the USSR) usually left no chance to less experienced pilots on MiG-29s.

Correction. Mary Air Base was the location of the 1521st Center for Combat Employment, a counterpart of the Aggressor squadron.

 

[Texnuk]

Rewriting history again... The MiG-23 of the MLD modification could not conduct and win an air battle with the new MiG-29. Even with young pilots. The characteristics of these aircraft are very different. The MiG-29 was created as a fighter to gain air superiority. And that says it all. Yes, they fought training battles, but that's all. Tactics and techniques of conducting maneuverable combat were developed. Away from prying eyes...
the MiG-23 was created as a front-line fighter. The MiG-27 was created as a fighter-bomber. The prototype of the MiG-27 was the upgraded MiG-23BM. The differences of the new aircraft consisted in the new R-29B-300 engine and the PrNK-23 sighting and navigation system. A Type 3 wing with a new sweep change mechanism was installed on the MiG-23BM, the chassis was strengthened due to an increase in the mass of the combat load to 4 thousand kg. The composition of the armament also changed - a 30–mm six-barreled gun GSH-6-30A and new airborne radar equipment appeared.
At the beginning of 1975, under the designation MiG-27, the car was released into the series. A ventral keel was installed on all MiG-27s to eliminate stability problems, which was retracted when the landing gear was released. The flattened nose of the fuselage was characteristic, because of it the aircraft received the nickname "Platypus" or "Crocodile". In this compartment of the bow there was a laser rangefinder-target designator "Background".
On the attack aircraft, the ejection seat was placed slightly higher than on the MiG-23 and the slope of the windshield was made more gentle, which provided a better front view. Armor plates were laid along the sides of the cockpit, protecting the pilot from small-caliber weapons. The MiG-27 had several modifications. The variant with the Kaira laser rangefinder, which has a computer, was designated as the MiG-27K and was released into series in 1975. The MiG-27M is a vehicle similar in TTD to the MiG–27K, but more budget-friendly and reliable. However, in combat use, it was inferior to the 27K variant.

 

[bf109xxl]

Rewriting history again... The MiG-23 of the MLD modification could not conduct and win an air battle with the new MiG-29. Even with young pilots.

Try to learn history first. Read the article "Metamorphoses of Combat Training of Soviet Fighter Aviation in the Postwar Period" in three parts ("Aviation History" magazine in Russian, 1995-1996, IIRC), where the participants of the events (all the authors are colonels of the Soviet Air Force, pilots of the 1st class) describe in detail the evolution of Soviet air combat tactics, as well as the realities of the 1521st Center for Combat Employment. Do not try to pass off your fantasies as immutable truths.

Метаморфозы боевой подготовки советской истребительной авиации в послевоенный период
Авторы:
полковник авиации военный лётчик 1-го класса Игорь Карташев,
канд. воен. наук полковник авиации военный лётчик 1-го класса Зиновий Никитин,
лауреат Государственной премии полковник авиации военный летчик 1-го класса Пётр Черныш.
....
Забегая несколько вперёд, необходимо отметить, что жизнеспособность подобной тактики была подтверждена впоследствии, когда на вооружение частей советской фронтовой истребительной авиации стали поступать самолёты 4-го поколения. В немалой степени благодаря владению подобными навыками, марыйцы, летавшие на МиГ-23МЛД, неоднократно успешно «били» проверяемые полки, сражавшиеся на куда более совершенных МиГ-29(!), хотя исход поединков между этими машинами на первый взгляд был предопределён...

 

[bf109xxl]

The MiG-29 was created as a fighter to gain air superiority.

The development of the MiG-29 began within the scope of the PFI (Future Frontline Fighter, ПФИ=Перспективный Фронтовой Истребитель) program.

 

[bf109xxl]

the MiG-23 was created as a front-line fighter

MiG-23 was initially developed as an interceptor with limited maneuverability, and then it was painfully converted into a front-line fighter. From the same source:

Об эпопее по освоению в войсках перехватчика МиГ-23, усилиях, затраченных на то, чтобы превратить этот самолёт в полноценный фронтовой истребитель, и понесённых при этом потерях и говорить не стоит, так как это тема отдельной крупной работы

Your ideas about the history of Soviet aviation are very naive and superficial.

 

[bf109xxl]

The prototype of the MiG-27 was the upgraded MiG-23BM.

Nope. "MiG-27" was just another official designation of the serial MiG-23BM.

 

[Texnuk]

And why should I learn history if I am history myself...)
It was a Center of Combat Use. Once again, the tactics of air combat were practiced here. And the MLD, or in series 23-18, after improvements, is my last car, I left it for the Academy. So you will have to learn the history of Russian aviation...according to the books. Like Zubov's "aviation historian". And I studied according to the recommendations of the Central Research Institute-30. They were the ones who gave out calculations for both Migs.
It's strange why they wrote off 23, but launched the MiG-29 series, if it's so good...?
Come on...I've finished the discussion.
You're still that historian...bookstore.

 

[bf109xxl]

and why should I learn history

Simply because you don't know history well enough.

Like Zubov's "aviation historian".

He's a historian, not an empty talker who doesn't know much about aviation history, replacing it with propaganda clichés.

And I studied according to the recommendations of the Central Research Institute-30.

You don't seem to understand the difference between theory and practice very well. The pilots at the Mary were practitioners. And the opinion of _three_ combat training inspectors of the General Staff of the Air Force is much more valuable than yours.

I've finished the discussion.

You shouldn't start it at all.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a shame you can't share your information without also sharing your rudeness, B bf109xxl .

 

[bf109xxl]

Memories of the F-5 tests in the USSR by test pilot Kondaurov, who directly participated in the tests. From the text you can understand the real value of the calculations and recommendations of the 30th Central Scientific Research Institute of the Ministry of Defence at that time, which where far from reality.

 

[bf109xxl]

It's a shame you can't share your information without also sharing your rudeness

The rudeness started here:

Rewriting history again...

And I'm just paying in the same coin.
But somehow you didn't notice the rudeness of my opponent.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The rudeness started here:

And I'm just paying in the same coin.
But somehow you didn't notice the rudeness of my opponent.

It's odd how so many of your interactions descend to this level.] I wonder if there's a common denominator ...

 

[bf109xxl]

It's odd how so many of your interactions descend to this level.

It's me who has to descend to their level. Have you failed again to notice who was the first to leave the boundaries of academic discussion? It is typical modern Russian propaganda to claim a rewriting of history when it comes to the flaws, mistakes and crimes of the Soviet system.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, you don't have to descend to "their" level.

 

[bf109xxl]

Actually, you don't have to descend to "their" level.

You're absolutely right. But I am too emotional and can't always hold back. I apologize to anyone who was disgusted by this "discussion".
Propaganda in any form (and especially - modern Russian) makes me irresistibly want to oppose it.

I could cite many documents, memories of test pilots, monographs and other sources to support my point of view. But, apparently, the topic is not very interesting for the audience.