From: msaroff@erie.net (Matthew Saroff)

I have noticed that most of the comparisons between the former Soviet Union and western aircraft center on the MiG-29. From what I understand of the SU-27, it has a similar wing loading, more thrust to weight, better range, better engines than the MiG-29 (then again the Chevy Vega has better engines than the MiG-29), and more capable avionics.
Seeing how both are dirt cheap on the world market, wouldn't the Su-27 be a better standard for comparison?

From: TZ (TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu)

Yes, except that very few Su-27s have been exported so far, and so they are less likely to engage US/Western aircraft in combat. The MiG-29 is used by no less than 10-15 air forces worldwide, while the Su-27 is used (outside of the former USSR) by China and Vietnam, with India possibly taking delivery of a few in the next 2-5 years. The numbers of Su-27s exported are also very low--only 50 for China, and 12 for Vietnam. India may take delivery of up to 48 Su-30MKs, but a more realistic number is 20-30. In contrast, as many as 600 non-FSU "Fulcrums" are in worldwide service.

The next generation of the Su-27 family to hit the world market will be attack versions...specifically the Su-34/Su-32FN model, and the dual-role Su-30MK. The Su-35 has already superceded the Su-27 as the fighter of the next generation, so I doubt many older Su-27s will ever find export buyers. Finally, not a lot is known about the Su-35 yet, so any comparisons at this stage would be extremely premature.

That's why all the talk about MiG-29s...

From: CJV@msn.com (Colin James Vozeh)

You're probably right on most counts, but here's where I'll disagree - First, the Sukhoi costs alot more than the MiG. ALOT more. Something like $30 mil. vs less than $10 mil for the MiG. So many foreign countries have the Fulcrum it's not funny; very few have the Flanker (thank God).
While both have similar wing loadings, the Flanker has a better maximum turn rate (rumoured to be even better than the F16) by far (despite the fact that it's almost twice the size of the Fulcrum!); scuttlebutt is that this is because the Fulcrum is aerodynamically stable, while the Flanker is not. Remember the Flanker is several years newer, and benefits from better technology.
Also, I'm not sure the t/w ratio is that much different between the two, but both are relatively high.I'm also not so sure that the MiG's engines suck that bad. I'd like to hear more.
Last of all, and probably most pertinently, I think the reason that nobody compares anything to the Flanker is because, well, not many things compare well to it. Don't get me wrong. I've wanted an F-4 Phantom since I was six years old. But that SU27 is just *scary*, man. I could say more, but everyone would really accuse me of being a commie sympathizer or something.

From: TZ (TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu)

The price difference is not that severe. The MiG-29 sells for anywhere between US$20-$27 million, depending upon the terms of the package deal, amount in barter versus hard currency, weapons/avionics suite, etc. The Su-27 is probably closer to $25-30 million, or, essentially, the price of a US F/A-18D. However, as you point out, only two foreign operators have emerged for the "Flanker" (China & Vietnam), whereas about 15-20 have the MiG-29. The real cost difference between the two apparently is due to supportability...for some reason of which I'm not yet aware, the Su-27 is considered a lot more mainten- ance intensive and complex to operate than the MiG-29. Thus India has about 70 MiG-29s in service, but has balked at Russian efforts to sell it the Su-30 (multirole variant of the Su-27) on cost and supportability grounds. Vietnam chose the Su-27 over the MiG-29 presumably because of the former's longer range (needed to patrol the Spratley Island chain), but is already paying a big operational price...of the six delivered, only two are reportedly flying, and the VNAF has had problems getting even those fully operational.

> While both have similar wing loadings, the Flanker has a better
>maximum turn rate (rumoured to be even better than the F16) by far
>(despite the fact that it's almost twice the size of the Fulcrum!);
>scuttlebutt is that this is because the Fulcrum is aerodynamically
>stable, while the Flanker is not. Remember the Flanker is several
>years newer, and benefits from better technology.

Not _that_ much newer...both the T-10 and the "Fulcrum" prototype first flew in 1977, with the MiG-29 entering service in 1984/5, and the "Flanker" about a year or two later. The Su-27 is a bigger plane, and presumably has a better long-range radar (as it was used by the PVO Strany in the long-range interceptor role rather than as a tactical fighter, like the MiG-29), and the thrust of the AL-31Fs is greater than those of the MiG's RD-33s, due to the need to lift such a large airframe. However, I suspect that, radar dif- ferences aside, the other avionics in the basic Su-27 are _not_ that much different than in the MiG-29, including the weapons fits (both can carry the AA-10 & AA-11) and the HMS, so useful in those nasty off-boresight attacks.

> Also, I'm not sure the t/w ratio is that much different between the
>two, but both are relatively high.I'm also not so sure that the MiG's
>engines suck that bad. I'd like to hear more.

The key problems with the RD-33s have been industrial (poor workmanship-- i.e. Hungarian MiG-29 engines have had the bolts falling out and into the compression chambers, supposedly) and technical (a relatively short engine life and TBO schedule). I haven't heard of any operational difficulties with them, as with, for example, early versions of the TF-30, although the Indian air force has lost a number of MiG-29s in operational crashes, and some of these have been rumored to be linked with engine difficulties.

> Last of all, and probably most pertinently, I think the reason that
>nobody compares anything to the Flanker is because, well, not many
>things compare well to it. Don't get me wrong. I've wanted an F-4
>Phantom since I was six years old. But that SU27 is just *scary*,
>man. I could say more, but everyone would really accuse me of being
>a commie sympathizer or something.

The Su-27 is a _gorgeous_ plane, and very scary, but right now, I'm more worried about its successors, the Su-35 and Su-32FN, both of which will be in operational service years before the F-22. Let's just hope Iran runs out of money sometime in the next five years...