Why didn't China buy the MiG-29?

Yes, TAM is short abbreviation of Tianamen.

Contrary to what some people might think the Su-27SKs China ordered were not meant for the RuAF, nor where they anything like refurbished from existing airframes.

The PLAAF made specific requests to strengthen the airframe and landing gear to increase the payload, and the Russians made changes on the frequency of the radar and ECM gear to not match their own.

There was plenty of talk that the radar was downgraded but it appears that the Russians were blowing their horn on the capabilities of the radar, and the radar just didn't live up to the marketing.

I do think that the Su-27 was better for China as a whole, but the PLAAF could have easily chosen the MiG-29 if it were not for political intervention because MiG was much more a known brand name than Sukhoi at that time. People often buy on the basis of reputation and branding rather than the more logical choice, and MiG was certainly much more famous than Sukhoi.

If it were not for that pivotal decision, maybe Shenyang and Chengdu might be manufacturing MiG-29s right now.

Migs are not that good, especially Mig29. It has no ground attack ability.

Jiang said:

Migs are not that good, especially Mig29. It has no ground attack ability.

Click to expand...

With all due respect at that time MiG-29 was one of the better fighters available. Also Su-27 PLAAF bought during 1990s didn't had ground attack capability(or rather they, as MiG-29 for that matter, had only limited ground attack capabilities)...

If an old aerospace historian can interject a comment: China did the right thing. The MiG-29, for all its beautiful maneuverability - especially that one with thrust vectoring they showed off at Farnborough this year - has short legs. The Su-27, on the other hand, has much better range and almost as good maneuverability. It's a case of Messerschmidt versus Mustang again! You couldn't fly an Me-109 from Berlin to London, fight, and return. However, you could do the reverse in the Mustang.

Additionally, why do you think the Colombians are so upset about Venezuela's Sukhoi buy? They could care less if they'd bought MiGs. Sukhois give the Venezuelans capabilities for territorial aggression.

Actually the Su-27 has better maneuverbility than the MiG-29, as some anedoctal reports of experience seems to indicate. It also has better radar range to boot. Heck, even the IRST on the Su-27 had better range. When you look at other things, the RD-33s on the MiG-29 appear even worst than the AL-31F, although both are not shining examples of reliability. Not to mention the RD-33s smoke a lot.

So its really hard to see what advantage the MiG-29 had over the Su-27, and for its trouble, the Fulcrum is nearly as complex.

Personally, I think MiG's greatest mistake was not to build a fighter out of a single AL-31F engine. Their second biggest mistake was not to go fix wing with the Flogger.

crobato said:

Actually the Su-27 has better maneuverbility than the MiG-29, as some anedoctal reports of experience seems to indicate. It also has better radar range to boot. Heck, even the IRST on the Su-27 had better range. When you look at other things, the RD-33s on the MiG-29 appear even worst than the AL-31F, although both are not shining examples of reliability. Not to mention the RD-33s smoke a lot.

So its really hard to see what advantage the MiG-29 had over the Su-27, and for its trouble, the Fulcrum is nearly as complex.

Personally, I think MiG's greatest mistake was not to build a fighter out of a single AL-31F engine. Their second biggest mistake was not to go fix wing with the Flogger.

Click to expand...

Like to add one more the weaker engines of the Mig-29 being equipped with RD-33 (86.4 kN) while the Su-27 being equipped with AL-31 (122.8 kN)

At the time the PLAAF already had lots of short-range fighters. It doesn't make sense to purchase yet another short-range fighter (MiG-29). The MiG-31 and Su-27's longer operational range would enhance PLAAF's capabilities much better.

If the PLAAF wanted MiG-31's today, the Russians would prolly sell. But I doubt the PLAAF is interested.

If I can interject something along the same lines, I might ask: Why hasn't China bought the SU-24 or a family derivative? Even though the United States has totally effed up and retired the F-111, the basic mission requirement still exists - and will never fully be filled by the Strike Eagles. The later variants of the SU-24 are as close as the Russians have ever come to the F-111's capabilities, and even though sized between the F-111 and the Tornado, they would provide an exceptional interdiction and medium-range strike capability.

su-24
length: 22.7 m

f-111
length: 22.4 m

JH-7
length: 21 m

Rather comparable in size. Payload wise,
f-111 can indeed lift more than other two,
but it is not like they are lagging behind too much,
certainly not like Tornado which is quite a way
smaller and carries less payload than these three.

wanderingmind said:

If I can interject something along the same lines, I might ask: Why hasn't China bought the SU-24 or a family derivative? Even though the United States has totally effed up and retired the F-111, the basic mission requirement still exists - and will never fully be filled by the Strike Eagles. The later variants of the SU-24 are as close as the Russians have ever come to the F-111's capabilities, and even though sized between the F-111 and the Tornado, they would provide an exceptional interdiction and medium-range strike capability.

Click to expand...

By the time the Chinese were friends with the Russians again, the Su-24 design was clearly obsolete. The Chinese knew well enough that the swing wing design was a hassle to maintain, hence rejected making indigenous swing wing designs, and for this reason as well, also means thier scepticism towards the Tu-22M3. As a similar project the JH-7 was already well on its way in development, though they didn't really foresee some of the issues that would delay the JH-7A longer. One can ask questions why not the Su-25 too? It would have made a nice Q-5 replacement.

I think the reason why the PLAAF is motivated to get the Tu-160 isn't the airframe but to take a look at the rotary launcher for the cruise missiles. For the same reason their early interest on the Tu-22M3 despite being swing wing is not the plane or the airframe but how it could carry, launch and guide cruise missiles.

The Su-24 would not answer those questions.

Suffice to say, with the H-6 already carrying. launching and guiding cruise missiles, that interest has become a moot point, though I bet the PLAAF still likes to see that rotary launcher in the Tu-160.