MIg-21 v. Su-9

Flying Sorcerer

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
102
Reaction score
32
I've wondered for some time why the Sovs would develop both the Mig-21 and the Su-9 as interceptors - why not standardize on one only?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,768
Wasn't the Su-9 far larger and powerful - to carry big missiles and a big radar ? The MiG-21 was pretty basic... note that MiG tried to enlarge a MiG-21 to do a Su-9 job, that was the Ye-152 series.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,586
Reaction score
7,576
MiG-19 was the last fighter to equip VVS and PVO, from late 50s each air force went separate ways. Su-9/11/15 were specialised interceptors for the PVO. MiG-21 was a VVS day fighter, with interceptor modifications. Later on, the VVS MiG-23 was eventually adapted to PVO service, and the Su-27 was designed for both VVS and PVO from the start.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
896
Reaction score
1,548
it feels to me its like a retro version of the MiG-29 and Su-27
similar aerodynamics and design
but one was a small and basic and the other was a large coplicated version version
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Reaction score
672
I've always been of the belief that the likes of the Su-9 and Su-11 were optimised for bomber/recon interception, whilst the MiG-21 was more optimised for fighter/strike interception....as Archibald denotes, "larger and powerful - to carry big missiles and a big radar"; and dare I say range....

Regards
Pioneet
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,586
Reaction score
7,576
I've always been of the belief that the likes of the Su-9 and Su-11 were optimised for bomber/recon interception, whilst the MiG-21 was more optimised for fighter/strike interception....as Archibald denotes, "larger and powerful - to carry big missiles and a big radar"; and dare I say range....

Regards
Pioneet
Like I said. Su-9 = PVO.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,768
I tend to forget the PVO =/= VVS separation... makes sense.
- Su-9 specialized interceptor goes to PVO
- Mig-21 multirole combat aircraft, goes to VVS.

Distinction is pretty much Tactical Air Command versus Air Defense Command. Put differently: F-101A vs F-101B. Or F-104A vs F-104C.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,183
Reaction score
598
The MIG-21 very much evolved into a more flexible tactical fighter but the early versions were very much short range (virtually point defence) interceptor fighters.
Throw in the then developing ground-control Soviet doctrine and the difference in role between the early MIG-21s and Su-9 as they both started out wasn’t necessarily all that great. However the former was the much smaller cheaper version of that role with the latter being the bigger, higher performance and marginally longer range version of that role, and their 2 different users and their different focuses saw these roles and focuses become much more differentiated as the respective aircraft evolved.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top