Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

Tsavo Lion wrote:Just because any given article may have inaccurate data doesn't mean it's comepletely wrong. If new Su-34 batches were impressive, they would include the number of planes; but since they don't, it means they r small & in any case not bigger or equal to cover their losses. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/list-of-aircraft-losses-during-2022.html
FYI, my native language is Russian, I hated Ukrainian in school, & left the USSR in 1988. Before accusing me of being a nazi, read my earlier posts on other threads to see that I try to be neutral & unbiased.
Enough said, & don't even bother to respond to me.

yes, it is possible the total Su-34 lost since feb-2022 is arround 25 included combat losses and accidents, 15 in 2022 and 3-5 every year in 2023 and 2024

the number of Su-34 handed over is 8 in 2021, 10 in 2022 and probably at least 12 in 2023, total , about 30, after the end of first phase 2010-2020 of 32+92+2 = 126

the production in 2024, probably will be 16 or 18, also the modernization of the previous airplanes

it is necesary open a new regiment in new Leningrad Military District, probably at the end of this year or the begining of 2025

Big_Gazza wrote:I'm not buying the alleged number of losses of the Su-34, as far as I am concerned while a few have been lost, most claims are contrived BS.  IMHO the Su-34 has proven itself an excellent warplane, and as such, the NATOfaggot propaganda-war scum have focused on smearing it.  I just don't care what these conglomerrations of pond scum have to say.  Russia is bleeding Ukropistan white while conserving her own people, and that is all I really care about.

An interesting perspective for you on this is that I think the problem (while some might think it's not a problem in the first place and that's fine) is that because Russia doesn't release any numbers for losses or even for production aircraft and for good reason, it's still frustrating as hell that it's not countering the false information and losing the propaganda war.  I think we all understand why it's not even participating in the propaganda war of numbers, at least to the extent the other side is.

The only problem with that practice is it opens the door for the other side to make all its ridiculous claims.  I call them ridiculous because some of them just seem like they pulled them out of their asses and nothing to substantiate them, not to mention how ridiculously high they sound.

On the other hand, there are some of us (and I admit I am one of those) who screams out loud "Russia, get out there and defend yourself in the media for FS! Answer back the absolutely ridiculous claims so you can expose the brutally false propaganda campaign" that frankly is a whole other war in of itself.  I think that's where most of my own personal frustrations come from.

I had a counter argument on another forum today where someone posted the obvious result of the effectiveness of this western propaganda, I felt I had to defend it simply because of instinct since it involved the number of destroyed Su-35.  And despite how completely understandable what Russia is doing by not releasing any numbers to counter the west's false ones, it's still frustrating as hell because I only care about seeing Russia win this whole war including in the media, as unimportant as that might seem.

2nd batch of Su-34Ms for 2024 delivered

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4835108.html

Big_Gazza wrote:I'm not buying the alleged number of losses of the Su-34, as far as I am concerned while a few have been lost, most claims are contrived BS.  IMHO the Su-34 has proven itself an excellent warplane, and as such, the NATOfaggot propaganda-war scum have focused on smearing it.  I just don't care what these conglomerrations of pond scum have to say.  Russia is bleeding Ukropistan white while conserving her own people, and that is all I really care about.

Its only excellent? The Su-34 is single-handedly rewriting the book on ground support.

Forget light fighter bombers and stealth jets tossing extremely expensive small bombs because that is all their puny airframes can handle. The future belongs to heavy fighter bombers that can chuck very heavy glide bombs to destroy any kind of fortifications and do that shit round the clock from austere bases close to the frontlines to maximize the available sorties.

stuff moved to Talking bollocks thread.

Was going to trim more, but that would be censorship.

https://x.com/Roberto05246129/status/1812047976128266461

Pretty interesting story, su34 dropped ODAB1500 on a UAV control center by Kherson

The su34 was covered by Buk M3 and Pantsir - by using the 9S36M radar from Buk, they can spot these incoming 5V55 missiles or PAC2 missiles, and then the 1RS2-1 radar from Pantsir allow them to actually target the air defense missiles aimed at su34

So I am presuming then they are using newer command mobile units for these AD systems? Something that allows easy integration between the Buk M3 radar to work in tandem with Pantsir?

I seem to recall something like this anyway.

Awesome honestly.

Proof for any doubters that it is carried by the Su-34

Good wings but I suspect the tailfins are too small to give that terminal phase control authority needed.

Because a dumbass on Twitter knows better than engineers with decades of experience. 

Hole wrote:

Good wings but I suspect the tailfins are too small to give that terminal phase control authority needed.

Because a dumbass on Twitter knows better than engineers with decades of experience. 

Are you sure... don't ever remember encountering a dumb ass on Twitter or even the Internet before

Consistently missing by 10m points to calibration issue. Solves itself with enough test flights and engineers find the setting that works best.

Another enemy crossing met with another Kh-38ML, guided by Orlan-30.

https://t.me/intelslava/63468

Of interest - here we assume the platform is su34

But this arrangement changes the game, the laser designator is no longer important, you could theoretically do this with su25 and even yak130 , or what have you

I wonder if older missiles like kh25 can use beam riding guidance via separate platform like Orlan 30

It would make all platforms capable of PGM CAS

If not , then creating a module for kh38 to be used by any platform would enable all of them to be PGM capable

The AS-10 Karen is the HATO and ASCC codename for the Kh-25ML which is the semi active laser homing or laser spot homing model of the Kh-25.

Widely used, though it lacks the range and payload of the Kh-38ML which has a 250kg HE bomb as a payload and can reach targets 40km away.

The game changing aspect for the Russian forces is using drones to mark targets... they will have plenty of aircraft that can carry new and old missiles.

The Su-25 can carry 8 x AS-10s at a time...

If these have beam riding capability , then they should use those kh25/kh29 to take out additional targets along the front with older platforms like su25 and su24 - 10km is close but if they fly a low altitude mission they should be safe

They are not technically beam riding, beam riding is like Kornet missiles where the platform that launches the missile has to guide the missile by pointing a laser beam at the target and the missile in flight looks back at the launch platform directly at the laser beam to see where it is in the laser beam and manouvers to centre itself so as long as the laser remains pointed at the target you should eventually hit it assuming it was in range.

The Kh-25ML and the Kh-29ML and the new Kh-38ML are like Krasnopol laser guided artillery rounds and laser guided bombs and have a laser spot seeker in their nose so any platform can launch them and any other platform can mark the target, so the launch platform can launch and then leave, while the other platform like a drone or special forces troops can lase the target for the missile to home in on.

The Kh-25ML has a warhead of about 90kgs so can blow down small buildings like houses and take out pretty much any vehicle, while the Kh-38 has a warhead of 250kgs so can take out bunkers and bridges and strong structures with direct hits. The Kh-29 has a warhead of about 320kgs but has a shorter range of about 15-20km.

The Kh-29 also comes in TV guided versions too so it can chase down moving targets on its own too without the target needing to be marked.

The Kh-25MP are the anti radiation missiles for use against enemy radar and large SAMs.

Arkanghelsk wrote:If these have beam riding capability , then they should use those kh25/kh29 to take out additional targets along the front with older platforms like su25 and su24 - 10km is close but if they fly a low altitude mission they should be safe

As Garry said, those are not beam riders.
It is a classic old fashion semi active laser homing.
True, when accepted, the illuminating laser was carried by the carrier itself - which limited the range of the missile.
The second nuance was the fact that it is best operated at medium altitude, which combined with a small range makes the carrier vulnerable to ground defense.
What makes it quite useful to this very day, is its unusual construction.
Ch-25 used a lot of component bases of the earlier Ch-23. As a new command principle made the tail mounted Delta R1M command system unneeded, the niche was filled with a secondary warhead. Both combined make a 136kg warhead mass with 93kg of explosives - a shocking punch for a 300+ kg missile.
And it is surely not a case of those being taken out of service, it was serially produced till 1997.

They seemed to be the go to air to ground laser homing missile. The missile is only 300kgs so it wasn't big and it wasn't heavy but of course the accuracy meant it was a potent missile against suitable targets including individual vehicles.

In comparison the Kh-29 laser homing model has a warhead of about 320kgs so the warhead of the Kh-29 is heavier than the entire Kh-25ML missile, so it really needs to be used against bunkers and major buildings, and also structurally strong bridges and buildings made of concrete and of strong materials.

I don't know that they were made in enormous numbers but as ALAMO points out these missiles are of an old design based on the old AA-1 Alkali air to air missile which had a rear facing datalink module with the rocket motors mounted on the sides angled out and backwards.

The evolutionary path is a bit complicated, the AA-1 was their first AAM and was horribly complex in design and manufacture, which is why the Sidewinder was such an education for them with its simple modular design it was easy to make and easy to fix and maintain and also easier to upgrade.

They already had the AA-1 in mass production and used the body to make the Kh-66 and then Kh-23 for the MiG-23 and then the modular general use Kh-25 family of missiles that included quite a range of missiles... some of which never entered service like the thermal TV guided model, or which was made in large volumes like the anti radar MP models and the laser homing ML models. The HATO codenames included the command guided AS-7 Kerry which was the Kh-66/23 which did use the rear facing radio datalink, and the AS-10 Kh-25ML and the AS-12 anti radiation models of Kh-25MP etc.

They were widely used by Su-25, Su-24, Su-17, MiG-27 etc etc.

As you can see in this the top missile is the laser homing Kh-25ML called AS-10 Karen in the west, and the next missile down is the same missile with a big nose with a seeker to detect enemy radar called the Kh-25MP which was known as AS-12 Kedgler in the west. the former has a range of about 10km and the latter a range of up to 40km against radar emitting targets... presumably because it could be lofted... so if another platform like a drone was marking the target with a laser I would think the AS-10 might be able to reach 40km targets too, though the launch platform and the target marker would need to properly coordinate their attack.




[pretty sure the missiles above are not to scale, the Kh-29 is rather bigger and fatter than the Kh-25 family of missiles.]

Ch-29 had a heavy warhead ineed, but because of it's role.
The explosives load is not much bigger than for Ch-25 - it's 116 out of 317 kg warhead mass.
It is a fact of it being armored for penetration that make a difference. It is a classical bunker buster, or set to demolish strategic infrastructure like bridges etc.
Soviet/WarPac standard I must add not the Lego builder that was being made in the west.

That is interesting... the mostly western sources on the subject claim the Kh-29 family has a shaped charge HE warhead to destroy targets with heavy foundational structures, so the 320kg is a shaped charge bomb.

But an AP body with heavy metal structure to penetrate deep into the ground actually makes more sense because the missile is big and fat and looks rocket motor heavy like a weapon designed for rapid acceleration like you would have for a penetrating weapon like a runway penetrating munition or something similar..

Here you have a cross cut of Ch-29T version :



But all versions share the same 9B63MN warhead of 201 kg steel penetrating body filled with 116 kg explosives.
As you can see, it is clearly not a shaped charge.
Fuse is dual-mode, it can work on impact or delay.

GarryB wrote:

I don't know that they were made in enormous numbers

It is reported that about 27k Ch-25 family missiles have been produced, with about 7000 of the number exported.

lyle6 wrote:Its only excellent? The Su-34 is single-handedly rewriting the book on ground support.

Forget light fighter bombers and stealth jets tossing extremely expensive small bombs because that is all their puny airframes can handle. The future belongs to heavy fighter bombers that can chuck very heavy glide bombs to destroy any kind of fortifications and do that shit round the clock from austere bases close to the frontlines to maximize the available sorties.

Let us see what conclusions VKS takes out of this conflict in what regards to future force composition. I still do not see any big issue with adding "light" and "stealth" into the mix, when done the Russian way (means, like intended with the LTS)

- Airframe-wise, such "light" tactical fighter is able to carry 7.4 tons of ordnance, range ca 3k km. That is a payload x range performance rivalling with that of a Su-30. Considering internal carriage of the payloads which are normally used per sortie, it is probably better due to much lower drag.
- Operational cost should be clearly better in terms of propulsion for a lighter, single engine platform, with high commonality re. Su-57 helping in other economic and operational aspects. What impacts coatings and other new technologies have on frontline availability and costs, we only know from the Western, totally dysfunctional approach, and I would not take them as a reliable indication of how this will work for the VKS
- The external carriage of heaviest ordnance is probably not fully at the level of the Su-34. Actually it was new for me that the suspension points along the centerline would allow for such heavy weight, apart from some early mentions to Kinzhal being carried by Su-34 and mock-ups of heavy AShMs on Flankers, in principle this is not the standard station design of the plane I remember from old (KAB-1500 was the maximum), so maybe reinforcements were implemented afterwards? Su-57 and LTS on the other hand would rely on the same inner wing stations rated 1.5 tonnes each at least (I think the EFTs seen hanged there were the PTB-2000), that is a VERY significant punch in any case and I would submit that delivering bigger ordnance, though definitely useful and occasionally required, is not daily business, and could be performed in the future by the very Su-34, which will remain many years in operation, or by a new generation of low RCS, high persistence, low operational cost bombers, be it Okhotnik (doubtful) or more possibly PAK-DA
- Other requirements of the Su-34, like high levels of armour, preparation for very long endurance missions etc. are certainly way beyond the possibilities of lighter platforms, but still they have a high cost and a level of usefulness that needs to be continually re-assessed. The very builders of the su-34 say that heavy twin engine platforms are overkill for the daily work, and the penetration of precision weapons is increasing steadily also in the Russian armed forces, the increase of combat efficiency, reduction of logistic footprint etc. make it logical and expedient to proceed that way despite higher cost per unit of ordnance. That makes the need for such brutal payloads more occasional, and normally reduced to theaters like Eastern Ukraine, where absurdly reinforced Soviet era fortifications are widespread
- One cannot forget how long did it take for the VKS to start delivering air power to the frontline in a decisive way, from the need to painstakingly degrade the AD in 404 for months and years, to the need to create cheap effective weapons able to be used without exposing the carriers to being shot down regularly. For this most extended war period, where the IADS is heavily degraded but isolated AD sites are still operational, low RCS carriers are the right approach, combined with EW the AD footprint on them becomes really small and that makes their operation much safer than that of conventional platforms, which translates in a higher and more persistent level of support to the forces on the ground.

Not saying anything new to you I know, but in conclusion I think that the force composition proposed by Sukhoi still makes sense after the experience of the SMO. I am though curious to see, what adjustments do VKS and UAC themselves will agree for manned platforms. What I think is a given is that unmanned fleet will take the lion's share in newer developments.