It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sukhoi or Mig?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Re the Mig 1.44, although I haven't counted them, I think I read that it has the most control surfaces of any recent fighter, or at least any in-service one. Even the ventral fins can move.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I do know it's quite a few control surfaces because I have a lot of pictures of the 1.44. I wish it was a bit thinner and more swept back. Also a bit more of a Droop-snoot would be cool. Like a Su-27, but you know, whatever works. As long as it doesn't have a nose intake this thing will be sexy.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos.......
Just think what Sukhoi would have achieved with the same sort of unbroken development line that MiG enjoyed. Naturally you will think of more MiG's because they were everywhere, but technically Sukhoi had the lead. One exception is the MIg 21, this was far better than the Sukhoi Fitter and Fishpot, but again, these designs were made by a company re-establishing itself. When they got into their stride the Su-15 Flagon was far better than its Mikoyan rival and the Flanker (designed over 30 years ago) is simply the greatest of the lot. Nothing wrong with MiG's though, as you point out, but Sukhoi can get too easily overlooked, it was the comments about MiG's longer history in the field that prompted me to reply in this thread, it simply isn't the case.

Technically! Good point out of Waynos!

But I have to say Su-9/11 is a better interceptor than MiG-21. Although, we call MiG-21 as a fighter but it as be used a Interceptor factually, Vietnam for example.
In terms of capability, most data show MiG-21 actually is an intercepter.
Back to 29OVT and 37. If you observe carefully, you will find that TVC on 29OVT is more nimble and respondiblity than Su-37. We still remember there is no report tell me why Su-37 crash dawn several years ago.
Ferthermore, F-22 can do every maneuver MiG-29OVT or Su-37 done, otherwise Raptor also can do negative attcak angle maneuver that never showed by MiG-29OVT or Su-37 whereas rectangle TVC on F-22 is lower detected than circle TVC on Russia fighter.
----------------------
Here I built a word "respondibilty by myself because I have checked my dictionary but haven't find a word to depict when flap and H.T. movine, TVC moving synchronously. If you can tell me a formal English word to describle this, please don't hide.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Emile, the Su-9 was 100mph slower than the MiG 21 so that would point to the MiG being a better Interceptor, the Su-11 was only produced in tiny numbers because it couldn't unseat the MiG.

the word;
If you want a word to describe the controls and also the plane reacting quickly this would be 'responsive'

If you want to describe the controls acting at the same time this would be 'synchronised'

[edit on 8-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Emile, have you actually seen the F 22 do the stuff Su 27M and MiG 29M are doing mate, cause if you have, you'd be the first one...
Here's part of the F-22 operating manual: (don't ask me how I got it.)
Quote ' If you happen to encounter a Su 35/37 at a distance below 20 miles, this means a few things: 1st, You have screwed up...badly. You were supposed to shoot him down when he was 40 miles away and hadn't seen you. 2nd, EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! 3rd, report for debriefing and explain to your superiours how come you lost a 100 mln dollars plain, that is supposed to be Best of the Best of the Best...
Don't get me wrong, the Raptor is great at a lot of things... dogfight ain't one of 'em. (btw can you tell me what is the use of negative angle of attack in a dogfight)

Another thing. It is not fare to compare Su and MiG fighters, no two aircraft were delsigned to compete against each other, but to complement (the same way F16 complements F15) If you are going to compare, it is wrong to pit the Su 9/11 against MiG-21 (should be MiG-19). MiG 21 should be compared with Su 15 TM. The Su is the better interceptor, the Mig is better in dogfights, cheaper and easily produced.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Really the F-22 shouldn't be brought into this thread, it has quite enough of its own.




Another thing. It is not fare to compare Su and MiG fighters, no two aircraft were delsigned to compete against each other,


Not quite. There was always competition, but he planes that recieved a MiG or Su number were only the successful ones that reached service.

As a general rule, for every MiG there is a little known Sukhoi 'S' or 'T' prototype and for every 'Su' there is a Mikoyan Ye that lost.

one example, the Su-15 is not comparable to the MiG 21 at all, it is comparable to the Mikoyan Ye 152 series of prototypes which it was selected in preference to. There are many more.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Nonetheless, the comment made was valid. It isn't really fair to pit Sukhois against MiGs at that day and age, because they weren't made to shoot each other out of the sky. There is a fair difference between competition between companies and competition in an air battle. Possibly the best comparison would be to pit them against a comparable American plane, then compare how they fare.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Aren't the Su and MiG type of a/c in different classes alltogether?
I'm not too sound on the history bit, but from the planes I've had knowledge about, I've always looked at the Su a/c to be the more "heavier payload, longer range interdiction type" fighter where as the MiG has always come across as the more lightweight, faster?,nimble aircraft.
The proposals for the 5th gen fighters from the resp. companies follow the same trend as far as I know..


correct me if I'm wrong
What were the Su equivalents of the MiG 23 and 27?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
Emile, have you actually seen the F 22 do the stuff Su 27M and MiG 29M are doing mate, cause if you have, you'd be the first one...


Some great footage of f-22 pulling of some incredible maneuvers here.




posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   


Aren't the Su and MiG type of a/c in different classes alltogether?


they aren't types of aircraft, Sukhoi and MiG are the names of design bureaux, they (and others, don't forget Yakovlev, for one) produced competing designs for the same specifications. At first all prototypes were built and evaluated later, during the '60's, it became too expensive to do this so the losing competitor stayed on the drawing board. It doesn't mean they weren't in competition.




from the planes I've had knowledge about, I've always looked at the Su a/c to be the more "heavier payload, longer range interdiction type" fighter where as the MiG has always come across as the more lightweight, faster?,nimble aircraft


Sorry but that is nonsense, surely it is plain that the MiG 25 is roughly twice as big and heavy as an Su-17 so there is no way you can say MiGs are smaller etc.




The proposals for the 5th gen fighters from the resp. companies follow the same trend as far as I know..


Except that the MiG 1/44 is massive and is in the same class as the rival Berkut, upon which both companies based their proposals.




What were the Su equivalents of the MiG 23 and 27?

I think you are oversimplifying it a bit, both companiers tendered for the same requirements, but not necessarily each and every time, even so the equivalent model from Sukhoi would be the Su 17-22 family. This is closer to the MiG 27 as there is no direct A2A equivalent of the MiG 23 Because the original Su-7 airframe upon which it is based had already been proven unsuitable for the role in the 1950's.

The mistake you are making is in presuming there are hard and fast rules about it, or at least that is how your 'MiG's are smaller' comes across.

The MiG 25 was the biggest Interceptor designed from the outset for the role ever to enter service, its design rival was not a Sukhoi or a Yak but a Tupolev, the Tu 138. Likewise a rival design for the MiG 31 was the Tu 148 which resembles a Tu-22M Backfire with fighter cockpits.

MiG designed a big twin jet fighter in direct competition with the Su-27, it was called the 'MiG 29 Heavy' but was discontinued and MiG continued with the smaller MiG 29 Light that we know today.

Speaking of more modern projects the original Sukhoi S 37 (before the Berkut) was a small single engined delta canard fighter in exactly the same class as the SAAB Gripen and looking not unlike the BAe P106 project of the 1980's.

Even more up to date was the S.54, A single engined 'mini flanker' with canards and a tail like the 'Super Flanker' that was in the same size class as the MiG 33/LC-1.

Going right back to 1949, the original Su-17 was a single engined fighter that looked like an elongated MiG 15, it was elongated only because it was to be supersonic, not because it was in a heavier class.



Obviously it happened more often than not that lighter MiG's were selected and heavier Sukhois, but this was not a deliberate plan.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I agree with you waynos, for every Su or Mig aircraft there usually was a Mig or Su that lost the competition and didn't go into production. What I meant is that the aircraft that did go into production were not competitors but rather aircrft complementing each other (like F15 & F16), they can be compared but not as rival platforms.
The MiG 23 and 21 served until recently alongside Su 15s and MiG 25s, complementing each other, the first two being used mainly in the Air Force as battlefield superiority fighters and the latter in the Air Defence Forces as interceptors. MiG 23 was used also as interceptor in its 'P' for pjerehvatchik(interceptor) variant.
The Su competitor for MiG 27 can be considered Su 17/20/22. In this case both types served alongside each other. The Su 22M4 is the more capable fighter- bomber but if it has to enter a dogfight it's a sitting duck, while the MiG 23BM/27 being based on the MiG 23 can actually hold its own in A2A (only dogfight, no radar)
Sorry I brought F22 here, but I just felt I had to answer emile.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Implosion please review my comments on the Langley 2006 topic. Sorry mate but there was nothing in that display that can be called incredible or innovative. Please find some videos of Typhoons, Rafales, F-18Es or better yet, the original '96 Farnborough display of the Su 37 and compare them to this. I'm sure the Raptor will strike you as a heavy ungainly beast. Somehow I would expect more from an aircraft that costs 4 times the Su 37 (unit price, not counting development cost, in the case of the Su they just upgraded the Su 27, costs were incomparably low)
What amazes me is why the americans need the 22. If they upgraded the F 15C with the engines from F15E and new avionics it would be more than capable to do the job for years to come. and what could be done with the money spent on the ATF program...



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
It won't be MiG or Sukhoi any longer if the russian governemtn has and say in it. There are planes to combine both these compaines into one



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I was a bit suprised by what I DIDN'T see on this thread, till I remembered all the maniac photo-choppers are on a different forum I visit. Honestly, with all the comments in the first few posts about which aircraft is sexier/sleeker, I was expecting a photochop of a fighterplane in an evening gown or bathing suit.

Joking aside though, in a 'straight' fight between country X that bought a Flankerjet, and country Y that bought a Fulcrum, I'd have to give better odds to country X.

Both aircraft are extremely manuverable, beyond the limits of a human pilot even. Thrust to weight ratio may be of some use, after the aircraft have bled off much of thier speed in heavy manuvering, but pilot skill/tactics means so much more at that point it's useless to debate.

At longer ranges, I don't know enough about the radars in each aircraft to determine who will know about the other guy first or get the first shot off, but I believe I've heard the SU-35 has the better radar. They'd both have the same jammers, and the same missiles, so Radar is the only factor that I can think of that matters for a long range game of nose chicken.

All that's left now is fuel, which is why I would credit the Su-35 as a better bet. (numbers, cost, and pilot skill aside) Change that long range game of nose chicken into a tail chase, and the much greater fuel capacity of the Flanker jet means it can spend more time running away really fast than the Mig could chase it, or could run the MiG to the ground while giving chase.

The other part of that greater fuel load is mission flexibility. Country Y wants to go drop a bomb on Country X's runway, a flight path must be chosen to allow thier solo MiG to get there and back, while hopefully having enough extra fuel to fight or flee from the defending Sukhoi, loitering in defence. Country X returns the favor the next day, and they've got an aircraft able to go for a nice long cruise all the way around county Y, attackign from a far greater variety of approach angles, while still having enough gas left over to run away.

Of course, everything I just said is based on a make-believe world where two countries each have one aircraft apiece, but get to keep using it day after day. Using both aircraft to compliment eachother is worth more than either plane by itself.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join