Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Jul 13, 2020
The Soviet employ 2 very similar fighter-bomber at the same time,Probably due to politics.Which do you think is better?
Which is better Su-17 or MiG-27?
- Thread starter Nodeo-Franvier
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just because they both employ variable geometry swept wings, it doesn't mean they're similar. The Su-17 was an evolution of the older Su-7; swept wings being a new concept introduced (it was the first of this kind in the URSS). The Mig 27 is a dedicated ground attack variant of the Mig 23, a plane designed for a different role.
The Su-17 was cheaper, simpler and was exported in great numbers, the Mig 27 was probably more like an interim solution while waiting for a more modern and dedicated ground attack plane (which eventually materialized in the Su-24).
The Su-17 was cheaper, simpler and was exported in great numbers, the Mig 27 was probably more like an interim solution while waiting for a more modern and dedicated ground attack plane (which eventually materialized in the Su-24).
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I really enjoy the Paper Skies channel YT videos. I think they're worth watching.
Off the top of my head, the MiG-27 was more sophisticated avionics wise than the Sukhoi offering, which for the sake of argument I'm including the Su-20 and -22 derivatives, so operated in a different environment compared to the simpler Sukhoi products.
In the Su-17 the reason for the VG was to improve its range and lower its landing speeds as the original Su-7 from which the '-17 was derived was particularly fast in this regime. Avionics wise the Su-17 had radar deleted from the shock cone in the nose, but it was fitted with a laser ranger in the cone, doppler equipment and a rad-alt, with later versions fitted with a ranging radar as well. The Su-17 could outperform the MiG-27 at low level and in combat radius, but the latter specialised as a ground striker fitted with a nav-attack system and a navigation computer, laser ranger in the nose and the ability to carry guided weaponry, the Kh-23 guided missile. It was optimised beyond the basic interim MiG-23B models, which were less sophisticated adaptations of the MiG-23 fighter airframe for ground attack missions.
The sophistication difference between the two types means that they would have carried out different mission profiles. As a basic bomb-truck the Su-17 family was the better type and through the various designations proved a worthy export product. The MiG-27 however was designed for deep penetration of defended airspace and greater accuracy in weapons delivery, with a wider variety of specialised weapons for different targets being able to be carried.
An ex-Egyptian air Force Su-20 that was evaluated by the East Germans.
Gatow 80
Always liked the look of the humpbacked "Rhino".
Gatow 100
MiG-27, note the scabbed on armour plate on the fuselage side below the cockpit canopy.
NAM 57
In the Su-17 the reason for the VG was to improve its range and lower its landing speeds as the original Su-7 from which the '-17 was derived was particularly fast in this regime. Avionics wise the Su-17 had radar deleted from the shock cone in the nose, but it was fitted with a laser ranger in the cone, doppler equipment and a rad-alt, with later versions fitted with a ranging radar as well. The Su-17 could outperform the MiG-27 at low level and in combat radius, but the latter specialised as a ground striker fitted with a nav-attack system and a navigation computer, laser ranger in the nose and the ability to carry guided weaponry, the Kh-23 guided missile. It was optimised beyond the basic interim MiG-23B models, which were less sophisticated adaptations of the MiG-23 fighter airframe for ground attack missions.
The sophistication difference between the two types means that they would have carried out different mission profiles. As a basic bomb-truck the Su-17 family was the better type and through the various designations proved a worthy export product. The MiG-27 however was designed for deep penetration of defended airspace and greater accuracy in weapons delivery, with a wider variety of specialised weapons for different targets being able to be carried.
An ex-Egyptian air Force Su-20 that was evaluated by the East Germans.
Always liked the look of the humpbacked "Rhino".
MiG-27, note the scabbed on armour plate on the fuselage side below the cockpit canopy.
reality is much more complex - Mig 27 was more sophisticated than Su-17 (20) or simply "product S-32", but for sure much simpler than Su17M3/4 (Su-22 - "product S-54"). Later versions of Su offered much wider weapon array than MiG27. Talking about Su22 as a simple bomb truck is misunderstanding considering guided weapons and special equipment arsenal this aircraft has been integrated. Generally i would say that existence of Mig27 was kind of risk reduction measure for the final version of Su project and also clear evidence of ambitious competition between OKBs of Su and Mig
i tend to agree - withe exmption of the cannon armament - GSh-6-30 may be whole reason for the MiG27 existence- lets call it Thunderboldovski
Admiral Beez
Captain
It's interesting how throughout much of the Cold War it seemed that every Soviet fighter was a MiG, whereas nowadays everything's a Sukhoi. Clearly Mikoyan forgot to grease the right palms once Putin took over.
ARTESH
Chief Master Sergeant
Unfortunately I have no info / idea about said planes.
I have little info about Su-22 and MiG-23/25.
Of I want to chose one of them, it's MiG-25 100%sure.
It has more speed, can fly at higher altitudes, it's a multirole, and a great opponent to F-14s.
I have little info about Su-22 and MiG-23/25.
Of I want to chose one of them, it's MiG-25 100%sure.
It has more speed, can fly at higher altitudes, it's a multirole, and a great opponent to F-14s.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Apparently the TBO was measured in minutes when extended afterburner was used.
The National Interest: Blog
nationalinterest.org
"In 1971, a Soviet Foxbat operating out of Egypt turned on its afterburners and managed to escape several Israeli fighters by flying in excess of Mach 3, although the experience permanently burned out the plane's engines."
Last edited:
The engines not withstanding speeds in excess of Mach 3 might have been true for the early versions (The original. Tumanski R-15 was designed for single use drones/missiles). The problem appears to be of the frame itself, with lateral stability greatly diminished above Mach 2.8.Apparently the TBO was measured in minutes when extended afterburner was used.
The National Interest: Blog
"In 1971, a Soviet Foxbat operating out of Egypt turned on its afterburners and managed to escape several Israeli fighters by flying in excess of Mach 3, although the experience permanently burned out the plane's engines."
The aircraft manual states that the temperature after the turbine must never exceed 840°C, otherwise the engines must be taken down for inspection. The engine appears to work as an hybrid turbo-ramjet at supersonic speeds and it gains in efficiency above Mach 2 (due to the pressure of the incoming air rushing into the engines via purpose built, variable geometry intakes) and of course the faster you go, the hotter the air becomes. But, as long as you keep under check the turbine temperature, the Mig-25 could go faster than Mach 3, so it was more a matter of environmental conditions, of altitude, etc... The Tumanski R-15 is very inefficient at subsonic speeds: out of the 15 metric tons of high density kerosene carried by the aircraft, 6500kg are allocated for climbing up to operational altitude (20km) and 'only' 5000Kg for the mission proper at supersonic speeds. Each engine consumes about 125Kg of fuel/minute at maximum power, about the same as a J58 installed on the SR.71
The afterburners of the Mig 25 had two modes of operation: 'cruise' for maximum endurance at a speed of Mach=2.35 at 20Km altitude and maximum power, which will net you a peak of 170KN of thrust at 11Km and Mach 2.2; at 20Km of altitude and Mach 2.8, the engine is still able to provide over 60KN of thrust which is more than enough to push it faster, if needed.
The last version of the Tumanski R-15 (R-15BF2-300) was tested on four Mig-25 and allowed a maximum continuous speed of 3700Km/h with the aircraft loaded and 4000KM/h in a clean configuration (no external weapons or tanks). It was one of these aircraft that took the world records for climb and altitude in 1977.
I think the Mikoyan bureau went downhill in quality of their outputs after the Mig-21.
Consider the Mig-29 and the Su-27. Both originate from the same study made by the Central Institute of Aerodynamics. As usual, Mikoyan went for the small front aircraft, Sukhoi for the large, long range one. The Mig-29 is now being retired everywhere (funny enough there are modernization programs for the MIg-21 that keep it worthwhile as a dogfighter even in the 21st century!) the Su-27 is still used in Russia and by a few customers. The subsequent Su-33, 34, 35 aircraft also attracted the interest of many potential buyers. None of the Mig-29 derivatives did.
The Mig-29 maybe failed in what made the Mig-21 such a good plane: it's far less durable and easy to maintain than its ancestor. It's a nimble dogfighter, but less easy to fly than the Mig-21 and has no fly-by wire controls (The SU-27 always did in the form of a computer that controlled flight envelope and prevented the pilot from pulling stunts that could put the aircraft in danger; expert pilots can deactivate these safeguards but normally these are left active).
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Great post! Thanks.
MiG-31 was very much a quality airplane, so was the MiG-25.
MiG company missed the 'vibe' in the 'light fighter' department, 1st with MiG-23, and then with MiG-29, for different reasons. It took 2 redesigns to make the wing 'box' withstand high G maneuvers on the Flogger, and whole swing-wing idea netted a more expensive and more complicated product than it was necessary. Too bad they didn't make a 'big Mirage F.1' instead of the MiG-23 as-is.
With MiG-29, a mistake was to go on with 2-engined design at the 1st place. Americans/GD hit the bullseye here with F-16, that obviously was a 1-engined thing. It was already hard for countries to replace the earlier MiGs in 1970s-1980s even with the 1-engined MiG-23. The wholesale replacement of the MiG-21 force with MiG-29s could've happen only with Soviets handing these for free, and that's not going to happen.
Admiral Beez
Captain
The MiG-29 isn't that bad, they've made nearly 2,000 of them and they continue to be produced today, I believe. But Sukhoi gets all the love from Moscow and Beijing it seems.
Interestingly the MiG-29 has at least two operators in the America's, including these sharp looking ones from Peru.
Last edited:
The Mig 25/31, despite looking like fighter jets, are very specialized planes: interceptor/recon the 25, interceptor/recon/awac/missile carrier the 31 so very different from Migs 21/23/29.
To think that Russia tried to sell the Mig-31 in the 1990s but found no customers, they even had a 'super foxbat' prototype (6 long range R-33 missiles under the belly!) up for show. Call me crazy, but I think the Mig-31 is a much more useful aircraft today than it was 30 years ago due to how information technology changed warfare. The Mig-31 is a very fast sensor platform that can also carry heavy standoff weapons, so it doesn't need to dogfight: just get close to the battlefield, survey, deploy and get the hell out of there.
I do agree with Tomo Pauk analysis of how MIG bureau missed the vibe in the 'light fighter' department, which was their area of expertise up to the years of Mig-21. The Mig-29 also isn't quite 'lightweight': around 12 metric tons empty (compare that to the 8.5 tons of the F-16 and the 10,5t of the already 'big' MIg-23)
Admiral Beez
Captain
This article covers the pros and cons well.
nationalinterest.org
"Few fighter planes have managed to be so beloved and yet boast such an unfavorable combat record as the MiG-29."
Russia's MiG-29 Fulcrum: A Super Fighter or Super Failure?
They were hot rides—but with significant downsides.
nationalinterest.org
"Few fighter planes have managed to be so beloved and yet boast such an unfavorable combat record as the MiG-29."
Admiral Beez
Captain
The Chinese continued to develop the MiG-21 into the supersonic FJ-17 (shown below at the 2015 Paris Air Show) and subsonic Guizhou JL-9. Perhaps that's the direction MiG should have also taken.
Last edited:
Good stuff, thanks. MiG-27 was more sophisticated initially than Sukhoi product though, surely its sensor suite meant it was intended for deeper penetration attacks into defended airspace rather than the Sukhoi.
The Chengdu J7 and F-7 export variant is quite a more sophisticated development of the MiG-21 and, like the J6 based on the MiG-19 has undergone quite a transformation through many different variants. The Chinese sure do know how to get the most out of an airframe. The JF-17 Thunder is, as yet not in service with the PLAAF, although Pakistan has the type in service now as a light strike fighter and it has been aggressively marketing the type to offset the costs, which at present, until the PLAAF commits wholeheartedly to, are being absorbed by Pakistan. It was being heavily marketed at the 2019 Paris Airshow too.
Proximity to the P-47 in the background might have been intentional...
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
