Su-17/20/22 attack aircrafts

Many western "experts" are extremely biased against this mainstay of soviet close air support(and my favorite aircraft). In one forum a US fanboy(although highly respected because of ignorance) downright compared the Su-17M4 to be only comparable to a 1970s vintage F-4F in the CAS role, highlighting how the tornado had somehow 250% more payload and supposed inability to go supersonic at low altitude.

I smell BS. The bulk of the soviet strike aircraft force couldn't've been so lousy. Unfortunately I don't know where to find reliable sources that prove this propaganda wrong. Does anyoneknow anything about the Su-22M4 and who had the Strike aircraft advantage during the cold war?

You mean an aircraft that is a decade plus newer is better?

My god! It's like technology moved foreward or something?

You are comparing a deep strike aircraft with short range fighter bomber.

If you have to compare a Tornado with a Soviet aircraft it would be much fairer to compare with the Su-24 and now Su34.

If you want to compare late model Fitters, or indeed MiG-27K with a western equivalent it would probably be the Jaguar or ground attack Harrier.

To be honest the Su-20/17/22 is not really well understood or appreciated in the west.

It is a bit like an A-10 in the sense that lots of people don't like it because they don't understand how well it is suited to its mission and can't really be replaced with a vanilla fourth gen fighter bomber like a MiG-29SMT or in the case of the A-10 the F-16.

I remember before the Su-27 and MIG-29 were commonly seen at airshows when all the Soviet fighters seemed to be tubes with wings like the Su-22 and MiG-21/-15/-17/-19 etc and I thought Soviet fighters were a bit boring... now that we are used to the new sleek shapes, I am starting to appreciate the older designs more.

I have seen lots of western docos about Soviet air power that often mistake the Fitter for a MiG-21,... the key is that the Fitter has cannon in its wing root.

I think that there is also some lingering ridicule over the Fitter half-way house swing wing design (with the swivel pivot being well outboard compared to a western arrangement at the time), which some Western "experts" held up as an example of alleged Russian technological crudity. In reality however the Fitter onversion avoided the worst of the COG shift problems and was cheap to produce, and provided a huge boost in terms of take-off weight (ie bomb-load), and substantially improved the combat performance of these tough strike planes.

This was an example of the Soviets using new technolgies in a measured and considered way to leverage the most from pre-exisitng designs, yet Westeners who preach the private enterprise, brand-name, build-it-new-every-time philosophy either don't get or (more likely) choose to deliberately misrepresent in order to smear a competing manufacturing ideology.

yet Westeners who preach the private enterprise, brand-name, build-it-new-every-time philosophy either don't get or (more likely) choose to deliberately misrepresent in order to smear a competing manufacturing ideology.

Yes.... they can either copy the west or they get it wrong... there are not other alternatives.

Just like tank gun launched missiles... the west dabbled and failed and then decided it couldn't be done effectively.

Or indeed machine pistols... the Stechkin is constantly derided in the west but seems very popular with east European paramilitary forces...

Su-24 has 8000kg max load while tornado has 9000?!O.oWhile 15 years older F111 has 14000kg load?!

Why didn't the soviets ever develop strike aicraft with bombloads the same as their western counterparts? Is because they lacked technology to do so?

Are there any disadvantages the tornado has over the Su-17 besides cost?

The Su-17/22 is the Aircraft that I know less, but the Su-24, F-111 and Tornado aren't comparable with the Su-17. Moreover, all the last three airplanes charge more than what is written, this thanks to the in flight refueling.

Tornado IDS is comparable with Su-24M. They are similar deep strike fighter bombers and you could join F-111 and maybe JH-7 in this club too. Su-34 is in the same level as F-15E, which have better air to air capabilities than Tornado IDS or Su-24 and could do a job of fighters with medium and long range AAMs.

Su-17, Mig-23BN, Mig-27 and Jaguar are a class between true CAS planes like A-10 or Su-25 and fighter bombers like Tornado, F-111 and Su-24M. They are not meant for deep strikes, but for CAS and attacks on near behind of front lines. Non of them is equipped with radar, but with laser range finder and target designator. They are meant for quick and precise attacks with laser guided missiles on armor units and artillery behind them. Their job was to quickly come to battlefield, launch missiles on the most dangerous targets and than to quickly go out of dangerous zone. They were made for Cold war times and strategy of that time. Today no new planes in this class are in production.

Did the USSR have any fighter bombers in the 80s that could carry as much as the F111(14tons)?

I think yes: the Su-24, but they aren't fighter-bombers.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Did the USSR have any fighter bombers in the 80s that could carry as much as the F111(14tons)?

Su-24 carried less, Tu-22M carried more.

Not everyone operates exact equivalents.

Su-24 is smaller and carry smaller load (8t). But still they are fighter bombers build for similar purpose and have similar equipment.

And, like the Su-7 and Su-17, they were build in large number, higher than that of NATO airplanes. Only for the Su-7/Su-17 approximately 4.000 aircraft. As far as i know the philosophy was different between NATO and USSR. A direct comparison is hard for me.
1.400 Su-24 against 550 F-111. The USSR immediately obtained the numerical superiority in Europe, in order to reduce the chances of a NATO attack.
Afaik the Su-7 and Su-17 were excellent aircrafts, with almost a Mig-21 dimensions, but with 4.000 Kg of armaments: a powerful "A-1 Skyraider", but supersonic and in large number. In the NATO there was not a direct equivalent.

Su-24 has 8000kg max load while tornado has 9000?!O.oWhile 15 years older F111 has 14000kg load?!

Ha ha ha ha... the F-111 has a 14 ton payload just like it can fly at mach 2.5.

It has never carried 14 tons into battle on a combat mission and has never flown at mach 2.5... these are theoretical limits.

Why didn't the soviets ever develop strike aicraft with bombloads the same as their western counterparts? Is because they lacked technology to do so?

Because the Soviets weren't 12 years old and fixated with max bomb load.
(not a shot at you, it is just that in real combat an F-111 with a 14 ton payload would fly like a dog and if the target is a radar then what is the aircraft going to do with those other 13.5 tons of bombs?
Having a max payload means burning more fuel and greatly reducing range)

they designed the Su-24 for very specific missions and its normal payload for most combat missions would likely include two fuel tanks a couple of guided bombs or guided missiles, and some self defence AAMs like R-60MKs.

If they wanted to drop 14 tons of bombs on a target they would not send an Su-24, they would send either a Tu-22M3 or a Tu-16.

A better question would be that with modern capable guided munitions why does the F-111 need a 14 ton payload?

Are there any disadvantages the tornado has over the Su-17 besides cost?

Size, weight, complexity. The Su-17 is a relatively cheap simple aircraft, that was able to deliver guided air to ground weapons.

Like I said, you are comparing a light single seat fighter bomber with a two seat medium strike aircraft.

Comparing the Sepecat Jaguar with the Su-24 would be just as unfair.  Different roles.

The Su-17M4 was the Sukhoi version of the MiG-27K, but was cheaper and simpler.

They were made for Cold war times and strategy of that time. Today no new planes in this class are in production.

Actually I would say their role has been absorbed by light multirole fighters like the F-16 and MiG-29SMT, which combine the role of the fighters and fighter bombers.

The MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 will be the MiG-21, MiG-23, and MiG-27 all rolled into one.

Did the USSR have any fighter bombers in the 80s that could carry as much as the F111(14tons)?

No. And they didn't need one.

Afaik the Su-7 and Su-17 were excellent aircrafts, with almost a Mig-21 dimensions, but with 4.000 Kg of armaments: a powerful "A-1 Skyraider", but supersonic and in large number. In the NATO there was not a direct equivalent.

The Sepecat Jaguar is similar...[/quote]

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Su-24 has 8000kg max load while tornado has 9000?!O.oWhile 15 years older F111 has 14000kg load?!

Why didn't the soviets ever develop strike aicraft with  bombloads the same as their western counterparts? Is because they lacked technology to do so?

As I already wrote,  AFAIK all these aircrafts can exceed widely the numbers written on Wiki: thanks to the in flight refueling. If an F-111 has an empty weight (with all the equipments and devices) of 22.400 Kg and a maximum takeoff weight (mtow) of 45.300, the difference is 22.900 kg.
Those 22.900 kg must be divided between fuel and weapons load. The "payload" applies only to the weapons, not to the fuel. The fuel isn't a payload. So, afaik, the payload is the difference: mtow - (empty weight + fuel).
By playing between fuel and payload theoretically you can calculate a weapon load up to 20.000-22.000 Kg. Each hardpoint of an F-111 afaik can carry 2.300 Kg (5 X Mk83 bombs). Since there are eight hardpoints, theoretically an F-111 could carry 40 Mk-83: 18.400 Kg of payload and would remain even 4.500 Kg for the fuel (actually a little bit ...). Once in flight, he goes to the first in flight refueling, because an aircraft can not exceed its mtow, except during the taxiing on the ground, where there is a weight higher than the mtow, (because it includes also the fuel needed to move on the runways and connections, but this fuel should definitely be burned fuel BEFORE the take-off).
Obviously, such overloaded aircraft will suffer severe limitations in altitude, speed, number of G, etc ...
(And, afaik, the perfrmance numbers, like a 2,5 Mach speed at 20.000 m. always refer to a new aircraft with no loads).
A similar thing for the Tornado. During Desert Storm Tornadoes took off also with 13.000 Kg of weapons and then go to the in flight refueling.

It was to say that it is not always easy to determine the payload of an aircraft.
However, in general aviation the payload is the payload, ie the load that pays: weapons, if military, or passengers if it is in the civil aviation.
The fuel does not pay, but it must be paid, so it is not the payload.
In any case, to compare Su-17 with F-4 Phantom-2 or Tornado, or the F-111 is a nonsense.
The Su-7/Su-17 was a powerful attack aircraft, like Jaguar, or A-4 Skyhawk, or an A-7. The interdiction missions were not required for this aircraft, because it requires long range in flight refueling and an advanced night-and-day, all-weather avionics for the low level flight. All things non required on a Su-7/Su-17.
For an attack, the attacker should have an absolute numerical superiority: several times the troops of the defender. Afaik, by getting the numerical superiority in Europe, the Soviet Union first deprived the NATO of the opportunity of a sudden aggression. The USSR attack aircrafts should have to support a mass attack of the Soviet forces as a response to an aggression: if you notice, aircrafts like Harriers and Jaguars, G-91 and Alphajets were able to operate from unpaved runways. The NATO indeed provided for the possibility of losing the bases and airports, during a gradual retreat, because of a mass tank and artillery attack from a numerically superior enemy. In this view, an high number of Su-7/Su-17 and other attack aircrafts would have to heavily support the Soviet ground forces, by hitting the key points immediately behind the enemy, but not into deep, miles and miles into enemy territory, as an F-111 or a Tornado or a Su-24.
In addition, the F-111 is a special aircraft that could replace also the B-58 and B-52 in the SAC, with the FB-111 version: from here originates the heavy payload capacity of an F-111. How to compare it with a Su-17 or an A-7?

I'm curious: could the Su-17M4 when in soviet service use KAB-500L LGBs?

I think yes, the Su-17 could carry a large variety of pods and weapons, The M-4 afaik had a laser rangefinder and a laser seeker in the nose cone (Klyon-54?). But a guided bomb is a precision weapon for dramatically reduce the number of missions for a single target: I don't think was this the Su-17 primary mission. I think that the primary mission of the Su-17 looks like that of the German Ju-87 Stuka, or Ju-88.
Moreover a laser bomb could track the laser of another operator, like ground forces, or another aircraft with targeting pod: one illuminates the target, another one shoots, but it is a complication because you have two aircafts for a single target ...

Moreover a laser bomb could track the laser of another operator, like ground forces, or another aircraft with targeting pod: one illuminates the target, another one shoots, but it is a complication because you have two aircafts for a single target ...

Quite normal for aircraft to support each other using such equipment... it means the aircraft carrying the guided bomb can perform a lofting manouver to maximise the bombs range, while the aircraft lasing the target can operate on a more stable flight profile marking the target.

According to my info the Su-17M3 and M4 and the Su-22M3 and M4 could use the Kh-25ML laser guided missile, the Kh-25MP anti radiation missile, the Kh-58 long range ARMs.

I think it's so easy to underestimate now a days the importance of 1000 + migv27 And su 17 in the WP air forces
I guess multirole is not a great thing all the time
If war with NATO came they alone would have soaked up the majority of the western interceptors attention, freeing up the WP fighters to concentrate only on battlefield air superiority and not to bother with air to ground missions

Having reread this thread I would like to say that external loads being given are external stores ratings and include all externally carried stores.

That means external fuel tanks are included in the weights... in fact often external fuel tanks have to be included because they are amongst the heaviest external stores that such aircraft regularly carry.

The external payload rating is usually not an actual payload that can be carried.

What I mean is that the Su-24 has x number of weapon points and each weapon point has y weight rating. Add up those weights and you come to z figure... most often given in the west as 8,000kgs.

For instance 8 weapon pylons able to carry 1,000kgs each would give you a weapon payload of 8 tons.

Of course in actual fact the two inner wing pylons carry 3,000 litre drop tanks so they must be rated to 3 tons each, but the other pylons are rated to lighter loads.

Carrying the max weapon load is unlikely to be all weapons.

Fuel is a very common component of the external payload for strike aircraft.

Large external loads means heavy weight and high drag which dramatically reduce performance in terms of speed and range... a light self defence armament of an R-60MK, a couple of laser guided bombs or laser guided missiles and external fuel tanks would be a normal weapon load for a Fencer or Fitter.

It would be the same for the Tornado and F-111.

These are not WWII bombers... carpet bombing requires enormous numbers of bombs to be effective without accuracy... that is why thousand bomber raids were carried out.

It is much more effective to put guided bombs on one plane and thousands of dumb bombs on thousands of planes.

RuAF in Germany (Templin, Groß Dölln) in the 90s. Last Su-17M4 left in April 1994.