Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

- 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.

That is a rookie mistake I would not expect from you.

I expect the Su-75 to be a rather good plane but when they say max payload is 7.4 tons and max range is close enough to 3,000km... I am pretty sure they do not mean at the same time.

Western, totally dysfunctional approach, and I would not take them as a reliable indication of how this will work for the VKS

Agree that western experience is useless to the Russians...

- 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 armour is for low level penetration flights when any idiot with a rifle can take a potshot. The armour ensures only a very very lucky hit or a dedicated ground to air artillery system has a chance of shooting it down manually.

I would say that often the Su-75 might use its stealth and high performance sensors to operate at medium altitude out of reach of trash fire and only able to be reached by medium range missiles the enemy is not going to have in abundance.

What I think is a given is that unmanned fleet will take the lion's share in newer developments.

I like the idea of the S-70 but I wouldn't cancel manned aircraft just yet.

they just use western tactics. Glide bombs from stand off distances.

What western tactics... it is only now they see a real air defence system and now they realise they can't penetrate properly and reliably with their stealth systems that are so expensive they can barely afford them let alone use them in the numbers they need to reach even weakly defended targets.

Su-34 with its armored canopy was supposed to fly above enemy and launch hundreds of bombs daily.

If it was to fly at high altitude it would have its engines and centre armoured because that is where missiles would hit it.

It is armoured the way it is to protect the aircraft on high speed low altitude strike missions... like the MiG-27 was for low altitude high speed medium to short range strike missions.

Now they just copy western weapons and used them the way western uses them.

Western weapons are an excellent example of why they shouldn't copy western weapons.

The western drones are too expensive at 20-30K plus American dollars each and are so easily jammed as to be useless.

Stormshadow/Scalp/Taurus is junk... when 1 in 15 get through and a millions of dollars each... it would be cheaper to offer money to the enemy to blow things up themselves.

So no su-34 isn't doing anything new. And it's just a shiity plane that neeed to adapt totally.

It is helping the Russians kick western arse with a plane you could buy ten of with the money that HATO wastes on one F-35 that still does not work properly yet.

There will be lots of lessons to learn from this conflict and I am happy to say the ego of the west as shown in your posts will assure the west learns all the wrong lessons while the Russian forces are just gong to get better.

You still need an su-34 kind of platform as an armored truck for the deployment of large scale weapons on a tactical scale. You also must remember that the Ukraine conflict is, though much broader, still not the same kind of conflict as would be seen against a full fledged western opponent. The su-34 has other specialties not always seen in this war or not reported as much. It can be a powerful elint platform and it also was designed like it's predecessor to go supersonic at the deck which still has very important uses.

Now this conflict is indeed showing some key weaknesses in the su-34 platform and indeed Russia is burning the midnight oil to build more stealthier platforms which it does very much need. They are also in need of s-70 stealth uavs and especially they need more and more cruise missiles and hypersonics which they are excelling in already. With all this said though they truly did need dozens and dozens of this aircraft. I think though you are right that the su-35 and su-57 as well as s-70 and su-75 need prioritization. In spite of this though the su-34 will be in big time need for decades to come and they will need repairs and upgrades. It truly is an amazing aircraft.

High intensity warfare with hundreds of ongoing fire support calls at any given moment calls for mass bomb trucks. Lightweight and LO frames with dismal availability rates can never.

But last time I checked US had built almost 1000 f-35 and Russia 140 or so

This is a little misleading, while US has built 1000+ F-35s, not all 1000+ went to the US AF. If I use your argument I can say Russia has built 1,600+ Mig 29s

Stormshadow/Scalp/Taurus so much junk russian copied the concept to create the kh-65 and improve the kh-55 inyo kh-101.

Just because newer Russian missiles have incorporated stealthier designs doesn't mean they copied NATzO designs.

They send the black sea fleet to the bottom

A gross exaggeration, you are starting to sound like Ukrainian and NATzO Propagandists

The US has a shit ton of f-35, China has hundreds of j-20. Russia has 140 Su-34...

I wonder what your point is in comparing the aircraft production of China and USA with Russia that doesn't have anywhere near the same GDP, industry or military budget?

that can't be used as designed against Ukraine

Su-34 was designed as front-line bomber, and right now it is dropping hundreds of bombs a day on the front line, so yes it can and it is being used as designated in Ukraine.

They are shit

Su-34 drops hundreds of bombs a day and it's been almost a year since one was shot down, the only shit here is your comments on military affairs.

to drop gliding bombs at safe distances.

Russian glide bombs have less than 40km range and Ukraine has S-300, patriot and Samp/T with ranges over 100km, where is the "safe distances" here?

Even SEAD role is done by iskander and drones becaus3 they can't do this too.

Bullshit, there is nothing stopping the Su-34 from being armed with Kh-31 and being used in SEAD, just because other systems are performing a task does not mean that the Su-34 is not capable of doing it.

Nato missiles are doing the job.

And what is their job?
To have less than 10% chance of breaching enemy defenses?

Not an exageration. They lost a fcking cruiser. A state of art sub. Landing ships. Raptor boats. Missile boats including new Karakurt. Rest of ships is hiding as far as possible in the eastern part. Total defeat for the black sea navy.

The sub and the Karakurt were only damaged and are being repaired, Ukraine claims to have sunk more Raptor boats than Russia has in the Black Sea and if the rest of the ships were "hidden" there would be no more Russian maritime trade in the Black Sea, and Ukraine would not be seeking a return to the grain deal.

it's the reality

Why are you talking about something you are totally detached from?

GarryB wrote:That is a rookie mistake I would not expect from you.

I expect the Su-75 to be a rather good plane but when they say max payload is 7.4 tons and max range is close enough to 3,000km... I am pretty sure they do not mean at the same time.

Certainly those two parameters do not apply simultaneously, not for any Russian plane BTW, max range and payload indications are always given in optimal conditions. That is why I make the last comment, in real world internal carriage (of both ordnance and fuel) results in greatly increased combat radius. We are hardly seeing even Su-34 deliver more than a few bombs per sortie, roughly equivalent to what even a Su-75 could carry internally (i.e. 2x Grom + 2x KAB-250).

The armour is for low level penetration flights when any idiot with a rifle can take a potshot. The armour ensures only a very very lucky hit or a dedicated ground to air artillery system has a chance of shooting it down manually.

I would say that often the Su-75 might use its stealth and high performance sensors to operate at medium altitude out of reach of trash fire and only able to be reached by medium range missiles the enemy is not going to have in abundance.

Against modern AD and given the attritional character of this conflict, it is prohibitive to come close to the frontline for the Su-34, in few months you would lose your fleet and, worst even, a big amount of invaluable pilots. That is what I mean by the need to continuously re-assess the value provided by the design decisions taken when developing your fleet. So Su-34 ends up being used similarly to what a Su-75 would do, the later being smaller, supposedly cheaper to operate and more difficult to detect, plus having an unmanned version from the start. Means, it could come closer to the targets, means, deliver shorter ranged weapons with lower cost and higher warhead/total weight ratio.

I like the idea of the S-70 but I wouldn't cancel manned aircraft just yet.

That is why it is such a great idea to have a manned and unmanned platform like LTS, which can be introduced in the fleet as manned and progressively transition to increasing proportions of unmanned airframes with the time.

What western tactics... it is only now they see a real air defence system and now they realise they can't penetrate properly and reliably with their stealth systems that are so expensive they can barely afford them let alone use them in the numbers they need to reach even weakly defended targets.

Hahaha, exactly, the fairy tale when "stealth" was being marketed was that it would allow to use stand-in ordnance and without the footprint of supporting assets like EW planes and so on... it turned out to be outright BS

There will be lots of lessons to learn from this conflict and I am happy to say the ego of the west as shown in your posts will assure the west learns all the wrong lessons while the Russian forces are just gong to get better.

Very likely...

TMA1 wrote:You still need an su-34 kind of platform as an armored truck for the deployment of large scale weapons on a tactical scale. You also must remember that the Ukraine conflict is, though much broader, still not the same kind of conflict as would be seen against a full fledged western opponent. The su-34 has other specialties not always seen in this war or not reported as much. It can be a powerful elint platform and it also was designed like it's predecessor to go supersonic at the deck which still has very important uses.

Now this conflict is indeed showing some key weaknesses in the su-34 platform and indeed Russia is burning the midnight oil to build more stealthier platforms which it does very much need. They are also in need of s-70 stealth uavs and especially they need more and more cruise missiles and hypersonics which they are excelling in already. With all this said though they truly did need dozens and dozens of this aircraft. I think though you are right that the su-35 and su-57 as well as s-70 and su-75 need prioritization. In spite of this though the su-34 will be in big time need for decades to come and they will need repairs and upgrades. It truly is an amazing aircraft.

Like said above, if you look at actual payloads, it is not 8t bombs per sortie. Even the Russian arsenal had nothing above 1.5t for tactical aircraft, which is a weight that can be carried by new LO platforms, too. I guess the lesson is that in order to make an actual impact on the conflict, you need insane amounts of HE on target, round the clock. First, more needs to be done on the targeting side of things, as the relatively low current load per sortie proves, and newer LO platforms are not worse there. Secondly, highly persistent unmanned platforms are the best answer to time critical missions, once targeting gets fast enough. For the time being, as you rightly say, the plane is being used at the highest intensity (I have read as much as 5h per day) and if you look at the numbers, it is easily the most abundant plane in the VKS, makes clear how Russians see priorities.

Currently, the possibility of a larger conflict with NATO is growing.

Have you ever heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)?
Avangard and Sarmat don't care how many F-35s the West has.

I will hear out complaints about the SU34 when I hear of a substrategic western aircraft that can drop 3000kg bombs.

Come on bro Russia has a neighbor in an undeclared war with full western backing that can yeet very good cruise missiles in salves only dozens of klicks away. Of course ships in a harbor, particularly old ships like the big cruiser with s300 missiles and naval osa missiles will get sunk in this kind of conflict. This is Vietnam on steroids with state of the art weaponry, and Russia must outfight and outproduce the current combined MIC of western nations while only spending maybe now about a hundred and twenty billion a year and with major defense industrial and commercial handicaps.

Problem with osint guys and guys like you and me watching on the sidelines is either dooming ridiculously too much or having rose tinted glasses. Nuance is dead in this insane age of infowar hypersaturation and an already thick fog of war on top of all this. All of us need to get a grip in one way or another.

Belisarius wrote:Russian glide bombs have less than 40km range and Ukraine has S-300, patriot and Samp/T with ranges over 100km, where is the "safe distances" here?

Some people claim they have more like 70 km range. It depends on the specific bomb and glide kit you are talking about.

Ukraine also mostly operates the S-300PT and S-300PS. Not the S-300PMU. Any S-300PMU they have would have been given to them by European NATO nations and is available in small numbers.

The S-300PT has a range of 75 km. This is less than Buk-M3. S-300PS has only 90 km range. Patriot PAC-3 also has less range than PAC-2.

Frontline bomber means it flies above the front, enemy front. Not 40km away and launch gliding bombs.

Here is a guided bomb hitting a target 24 km behind Ukrainian lines:
https://lostarmour.info/news/umpk-po-skladu-bk-v-kiselevke-her-obl
Is this close enough to the front for you?
I don't even know why I ask you this, even if the VKS starts flying kilometers behind the Ukrainian lines, you'll just change your speech to "they suck because they don't fly to deep behind the enemy line"

It's more than 1 years since it doesn't enter Ukraine.

It's more than 1 year since you've been trying to convince people that the ability to attack an enemy without entering their domain is a sign of weakness and incompetence...

Ukraine doesn't have that many AD anymore

Funny statement coming from someone who claims that Russia sucks at SEAD...

1000$ lancet does better than the su-34.

Lancet is cheaper but they cannot launch a Kh-31 that can hit a target 160 km away in 3 minutes, these are weapons of different classes that complement each other on the battlefield.

Kh-31 was used since the begining but seems to reach only bad results since they switched to iskander and lancet.

So why is it that every new photo of the Su-35 operating in SMO, they appear with the Kh-31?

RuAF lacks good elint

If Russia has a poor elint then why did Ukraine which had so many AD end up with, as you said yourself, so few AD left?

Nato missile have sent russian fleet to the bottom of the sea as said previously.

Last time I checked most of the Black Sea Fleet is afloat and operational.

Gor the low quantity delivered, they have a very good ratio in terms of target cost per missile used.

Thousands of missiles delivered and a few dozen successful strikes, no small deliveries or good missile cost/target cost ratio here.

Every hit is recorded.

So why do most of the hits they claim come with 0 visual evidence and sometimes Arma 3 gameplay?

Sat images show where rest of the fleet is, at port and not in Crimea.

Every ship has to dock at a port from time to time, just because you saw a picture of a ship in port doesn't mean the ship won't leave there. And the same Ukraine that claims to have expelled Russian ships from Crimea is the same Ukraine that continues to claim that it is "sinking" more Russian ships in Crimea!

Some people claim they have more like 70 km range. It depends on the specific bomb and glide kit you are talking about.

70 km is probably with the kits that contain boosters, which is something I rarely see used.
Buk-M3 has 70 km range, not more than 75 km and both Patriot PAC 2 and Samp/t have over 100 km range.

Some people with room temp IQ still think Russia lost that many Su-34's. Go spread Ukraines non evident shootdowns somewhere else.

Otherwise, give every borr number that crashed with evidence to that bort number.

Isos wrote:It's been more than 1 year they figured out su-34 is a dumb target for even soviet made system they should be be able to jamm easily. Yet they can't because the su-34 has a huge rcs and shitty EW.

I said su-34 is bad at sead not all their systems.

Kh-31 isn't even used anymore. Kh-35 is used against big radars and AD system are taken out by lancet/iskander. They go for coordinates instead of locking on radar waves. Finding is done by satelittes or drones. Their Elint/EW sucks big time.

Su-35 has way better sensor fusion and sensors.

Ukrainian air defense systems have been upgraded in terms of radar and electronics. So the idea they are the stock Soviet ones is simply not true. They also have connected all their air defense systems together with a smartphone/tablet app.

It is simply not true the Kh-31 is not used anymore. In fact the latest versions outrange the Patriot and SAMP/T.

The Su-34M with the large electronics pod is still not in service. In between that and limited numbers of Tu-214R aircraft that explains why ELINT isn't as good as it could be.

The Su-35 has much lower RCS than a regular Flanker. It is like 2m sq instead of 8m sq. It uses more composites and has coatings in the engine inlets to reduce RCS.

Isos wrote:Last time you check the BSF, did you dive to see the Slava ?

All the ships they hit were recorded. But it's useless to show it to you since you will close your eyes and say it never happened.
...
Only the Kilo sub cost two times more than all the missile used by Ukraine. They did a great job with their cruise missiles. They almost every month hit russian bases with great effectiveness.

They have 2 or 3 Patriot. At least 2 are around Kiev. 1 of the patriot at the begining shot down at least 5 sukhoi and 1 A-50U that fell in the sea. They do a better job with them than russians with their tens of different S-400/300 buks, S300vM and tors in Crimea. Nato missiles easily hit targets in Crimea and the only russian defence is to threaten nuclear war to stop them.

Losing the Slava was more of an issue in terms of losing crew than the ship which was basically obsolete and past its design lifetime. While it is unfortunate that this way they cannot have a full air defense umbrella over Odessa and that part of the sea anymore that is just how things are.

Ukraine hit several Russian ships. But most have either been repaired or in the process of being repaired. Only 2 or 3 ships were actually sunk. Which is less than the amount of sunk Ukrainian Navy ships. Which is basically all of them. They only have river boats left.

The Kilo submarine was not destroyed, just damaged, and is in fact being repaired. But sure whatever. How many Kilo submarines worth was the Kakhovka dam? Or them losing the whole 6GW Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant? I will give you an estimate. At $6 billion USD a reactor, that is like $36 billion USD lost just like that by Ukraine. That is why Ukraine are so fixated with getting it back. A Kilo submarine, even if it was written off, is worth what? $200 million USD?

The Russians destroyed a lot of Ukrainian aircraft with their air defenses. Just read the mil.ru reports. Why do you think Ukraine even needs the F-16s?

Isos wrote:

It's been more than 1 year they figured out su-34 is a dumb target for even soviet made system they should be be able to jamm easily. Yet they can't because the su-34 has a huge rcs and shitty EW.

Su-34 is a workhorse of the SMO.....having some losses is normal thing considering the huge amount of different anti-aircraft missile defense system deployed in Ukraine. Neither one airplane in the world encountered both Russian made S-300, BUKs, OSAs and NATO PAtriot, IRIST and etc. at the same time.
If you knew anything about EW you would've known that in such an environment neither one aircraft would survive, but Russian made do.

Isos wrote:
I said su-34 is bad at sead not all their systems.

it is probably the best frontline bomber in the world....much better than F-15 strike eagle...

Isos wrote:
Kh-31 isn't even used anymore. Kh-35 is used against big radars and AD system are taken out by lancet/iskander. They go for coordinates instead of locking on radar waves. Finding is done by satelittes or drones. Their Elint/EW sucks big time.

Again proves that you know nothing about radars and how they operate. They use everything they have at their disposal. If a su-35 armed with a Kh-31 is nearby and senses the radar wave then they fire Kh-31.....if satellites pick up radar wave they send Iskanders or Kinzhals.
Again, Russia has an advantage to use wide variety of weapons.

Isos wrote:
Su-35 has way better sensor fusion and sensors.

Su-35 is a complete different platform, it can not replace Su-34....


Last time you check the BSF, did you dive to see the Slava ?

Isos wrote:
All the ships they hit were recorded. But it's useless to show it to you since you will close your eyes and say it never happened.

All the ships which were hit, were hit by unmanned boats which are kinda new thing and no-one had an experience fighting with them until now. Russia is kinda a first nation to encounters them.....
I can't recall any ship hit by cruise missile while on duty in the sea........yes, hitting a ship in a harbour is a complete different thing.

Isos wrote:
Nato never delivered thousands of missiles. UK has has only few hundred missiles in stock. But yeah it's true when Russia says it has downed 60 missile at once they don't need to prove it, you just eat the propaganda.

Again idiot proof...after the war NATO will deny or try to lower the value of actual weapons delivered any weapons delivery to Ukraine...
Long story short, they delivered everything they could and they didn't turn the tide.

Isos wrote:
Only the Kilo sub cost two times more than all the missile used by Ukraine. They did a great job with their cruise missiles. They almost every month hit russian bases with great effectiveness.

They had few successful hits and that's it.
Russia is doing similar attacks (just on larger scale) on daily basic and hitting all targets from Lviv to Sumy.
I don't see a reason to masturbate because submarine was damaged while in dry dock? Wtf.....IRAN hit Israel airbase with several Balistic missile and neither Patriots, THAAD, Iron dome couldn't have stoped it.

Having hole in a hull of the submarine is kinda best copium NATO could get......good soon the submarine would be in waters again btw.

Isos wrote:
They have 2 or 3 Patriot. At least 2 are around Kiev. 1 of the patriot at the begining shot down at least 5 sukhoi and 1 A-50U that fell in the sea. They do a better job with them than russians with their tens of different S-400/300 buks, S300vM and tors in Crimea. Nato missiles easily hit targets in Crimea and the only russian defence is to threaten nuclear war to stop them.

Russia destroyed 90% of all SAMs delivered and you have video proofs on youtube. Stories about downed Sukhois are trustworthy like a story about ghost of Kyiv. A-50 over Azov sea is simply impossible to have been hit by patriot.
It is possible, if they managed to cross into Donetsk and fired from russian controlled territory.
If it was A-50 it was friendly fire.

Isos wrote:
Not only did they loose too many of them but they also stop using them until the gliding bombs appeared.

Never happened.

Isos wrote:
Without stealth, jets have no use. Even less when they have rcs of 25m2.

Say that to the F-117 downed over yugoslavia when encountering S-125 designed in the 50's.
or to F-16l (Sufa) downed by S-200in syria.

War is all about statistics and mathematics.
Amount of sorties Russia is flying over Ukraine vs the density of air defense system is unmatched and we have never seen anything like that.
Having losses over time is a normal thing.
Israel was doing let's say 20+ sorties per year against Syria and they managed to lose aircraft even though they didn't fly inside Syria airspace.
Russia is conducting 200+ combat sorties a day for 2.5 years.... encountering every single air defense system currently in service

Now this conflict is indeed showing some key weaknesses in the su-34 platform and indeed Russia is burning the midnight oil to build more stealthier platforms which it does very much need.

The amusing thing is that these Russian aircraft are being tested and challanged and changes and upgrades are being introduced to improve their performance.

Can't really say the same for western air forces that rely on air power in any conflict... we saw how vulnerable they were in Afghanistan after their air power left three months before the ground forces...

They are also in need of s-70 stealth uavs and especially

But do they though?

Western air defence consists of Patriot and ground launched AMRAAM and Aster in terms of reaching up to altitudes... I would wonder if stealth would make a huge difference, and indeed non stealthy aircraft getting such ground based systems to reveal themselves by activating might be a good way of taking them out.

Fly a few Kh-101s and Kh-55SMs to targets and watch for air defences to light up to engage and hit them with Kinzhals and Iskanders and next generation IRBM/CM weapons...

I don't think having stealthy aircraft or cruise missiles would help western forces penetrate Russian air defences, and doubt Russian stealth platforms would rule the skies over western airspace by being invisible either.

In spite of this though the su-34 will be in big time need for decades to come and they will need repairs and upgrades. It truly is an amazing aircraft.

The people who think a plane should be impossible to shoot down if it is any good are the ones that don't like it...

Children.

How can you play chess if you fall to pieces and cry with the loss of any piece.

Su34 just needs MAWS, improved jamming, better sensor fusion and it will be able to not only lob FABS but also brute force SHORADS and other AD

Also OLS-k for 360 degree views of ground

Certainly would not hurt but don't expect losses to drop to zero just because these changes are made.

War is dangerous.

Their missions are dangerous.

Missiles have hit the su-34 and it went down like a moskito. Useless armor.

The armour is against small arms fire because it flys very low and very fast some hits by small arms fire is possible... the armour is to reduce the chance of a lucky hit ending the mission.

It was never intended to be missile proof... that is just stupid.

Sure you can buy 10 su-34 for 1 f-35. But last time I checked US had built almost 1000 f-35 and Russia 140 or so su-34 and lost almost 20% of them in Ukraine.

And they are still not fully operational and have a low readiness rate and don't fly into dangerous airspace... which makes them super expensive and fucking useless.... the worst possible combination.

Stormshadow/Scalp/Taurus so much junk russian copied the concept to create the kh-65 and improve the kh-55 inyo kh-101.

Those crap eurotrash missiles are horribly expensive an less effective than Kh-31s which have been in service since the 1980s.

The closest Russian missile to those types is probably the Kh-69 which is an evolution of the Kh-59 missile which first entered service in the 1980s too... HATO codename AS-13 and AS-18 depending on the model.

The Kh-69 is box shaped to better fit in internal weapon bays... something the Euro weapons don't need to worry about because there are no Euro aircraft with internal weapon bays in service are there? Except perhaps the useless F-35s from America.

They send the black sea fleet to the bottom including 1 kilo that cost 450 million $. Totally worth having 1 out of 15 hit such a target...

You twist the truth so naturally I would think I was talking directly to CNN or the BBC.

The kilo that got hit wasn't even in the water and it has already returned to service... talking of value for money is amazing... keep it up... it will cost Europe trillions of euros... what with money pissed down the drain by sending it to Kiev, and also those gas bills.... did you hear about the Russian gas pipeline to Iran through the Caspian Sea... did you notice it was going to carry the same amount of gas that Russia used to sell to Europe... think that is a mistake?

Europe will never again get cheap Russian gas... but it is OK because of everything that Europe is getting out of this conflict with Russia.

You are paying more for electricity and your heavy industry is moving to the US and Frances colonies are realising they were being abused by the west just like the west was abusing Russia and now they want out too.

The cost to Europe is its empires and its credibility.... pretty steep price to pay to put a hole in a Russian sub.

@TMA1 If they lost 24 of them against Ukraine you can easily calculate how much would be left after 1 week fighting hundreds of patriot, hundreds of f-15, f-22 and a thousand f-35. Su-34 is a loss of mobey and nothing else. Those gliding bombs can be launch by any jet out there.

What hundreds of Patriots? Ukraines air defences were orders of magnitude better than Europes because the C4ISTAR support they got during this three year conflict would not have existed in a conflict against HATO... the Russians would have quickly taken it out.

High intensity warfare with hundreds of ongoing fire support calls at any given moment calls for mass bomb trucks. Lightweight and LO frames with dismal availability rates can never.

Agree to a point, but the whole idea behind aircraft like the MiG-35 is that it is a numbers aircraft so lots of callouts is what they are for.

Aircraft like F-35 with poor availability rates makes things worse, but a good light fighter solves the problem better than relying on a few heavy platforms.

The Su-34 wont load up with 12 tons of ordinance and just fly around hitting targets as they are spotted and reported... it will carry four glide bombs and hit one or two or three or four targets at one time with that load of weapons and then fly back to base.

It wont wander over the battlefield waiting for targets to pop up... it might have a Kh-31 in case a radar lights them up and they can fire that at it to make it shut down...

A gross exaggeration, you are starting to sound like Ukrainian and NATzO Propagandists

He probably doesn't want to watch the Olympics and just wants to flame bait some rooskies.

The US has a shit ton of f-35,

They do have a shit ton of shit, but even the Israelis wont fly them into Syrian airspace because Syria has S-300s... what chance against S-350s and S-400s?

Russia has 140 Su-34 that can't be used as designed against Ukraine.

And that is the problem with trying to talk to children.

The Su-34 IS BEING USED AGAINST UKRAINE. It is destroying targets and doing its job.

There are the occasional losses likely to a range of different reasons, but they continue to use them against a range of targets and the new FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 bombs with glide kits seem to be especially effective in this conflict aiding a Russian victory.

But the little kids want the scrapped and banned.

They are shit and can now only be used to drop gliding bombs at safe distances.

They are shit because they use standoff weapons the way they were designed to be used.

Get a clue... Israel has been using F-35s to launch standoff weapons into Syria over the last decade because the air defences are too strong for the stealthy super F-35 gold plated plane.

Do you think Rafale will do better?

Tell Moron to send Rafales to defeat Russia the way the Abrams tanks and the Leopard II tanks will defeat the Russians....

Nato missiles are doing the job.

No they aren't. The military significance of the very few that actually reach actual targets is pathetic and the number shot down or jammed is embarrassing and you as a taxpayer should be asking your military about cost effectiveness of such useless crap and why it is being used to make energy costs in the west higher.

The HATO missiles have been pathetic. They stopped using Excalibr because it was so easily jammed and couldn't hit anything.

Not an exageration. They lost a fcking cruiser.

There is no evidence of what happened to the Moskva, it might have been a cruiser, but it hadn't been upgraded for 30 years. There is a good chance an S-300F missile might have exploded on launch and set the ship on fire.

Certainly it had nothing to do with any western missiles.

state of art sub

A 40 year old sub design that was in dry dock at the time and is now back in service.

Landing ships.

A couple of landing ships were sunk in port and were refloated...

Raptor boats.

Speed boats... the Americans call Iranian equivalents bog hammers... and which amazing western super missiles destroyed them?

Missile boats including new Karakurt.

That was a surface drone attack... a bit like the speed boat attack on the USS Cole... the same sort of threat that has led to the Mighty US Navy and UK navy and the French Navy from running away and leaving civilian shipping to its fate in the Middle East.

Rest of ships is hiding as far as possible in the eastern part.

When a threat appears it makes sense to move ships out of harms way. That is just common sense.

Total defeat for the black sea navy. Like it or not, it's the reality.

Total defeat?

So money well spent. When is the victory parade?

I wonder what your point is in comparing the aircraft production of China and USA with Russia that doesn't have anywhere near the same GDP, industry or military budget?

More importantly comparing a super expensive plane that can't even do what the Su-34 is currently doing... how many FAB-3000 glide bombs can an F-35 deliver through an enemy country equipped with S-300 and Patriot and ground launched AMRAAM and Gepard and IRIS-T... and of course covered in stingers and all sorts of other western MANPADS...

The sub and the Karakurt were only damaged and are being repaired,

Both are repaired in fact...

We are hardly seeing even Su-34 deliver more than a few bombs per sortie, roughly equivalent to what even a Su-75 could carry internally (i.e. 2x Grom + 2x KAB-250).

Would guess it would carry AAMs and air to ground weapons so probably R-74s and Groms....

They have that 300mm diameter glide bomb that can be launched on the end of a Smerch rocket... I wonder if that might represent their equivalent of the SDB that might be carried internally in greater numbers than conventional bombs?

So Su-34 ends up being used similarly to what a Su-75 would do, the later being smaller, supposedly cheaper to operate and more difficult to detect, plus having an unmanned version from the start.

The Su-34 is deep strike, it would not be used to hit targets near the front line, but if it did it would use standoff weapons like bombs with glide kits so it could be launched at say 110km away from the ground target with the rocket boosted glide bomb GROM. For heavier targets the GROM with a double warhead and not rocket motor could be used from something like 40km but equally FABs with glide kits can be used too.

The Su-75 is going to be a MiG-23 and MiG-27 type aircraft, assuming it gets accepted into service.

Means, it could come closer to the targets, means, deliver shorter ranged weapons with lower cost and higher warhead/total weight ratio.

I am not so sure it is cheaper if you get shot down. The Ukrainians have already made clear they can't defeat bombs using glide kits.

I agree that smaller lighter aircraft could deliver ordinance cheaper, but a MiG-35 is probably faster and able to fly higher than an Su-75 so in terms of glide performance you get more bang for your buck with a MIG.

The Su-34 could deliver heavier bombs but when FAB-250 and FAB-500 and even FAB-1500 bombs are being used the MiG can do the same job cheaper than the Su-34 and I suspect its more advanced self defence avionics would make it safer.

That is why it is such a great idea to have a manned and unmanned platform like LTS, which can be introduced in the fleet as manned and progressively transition to increasing proportions of unmanned airframes with the time.

I am not buying that.

The S-70 might share design structure and materials with the Su-57 but its massively simplified design should make it much cheaper than what you are essentially talking about which is just an unmanned copy of a fighter... you don't really save much money at all by removing the cockpit and seat.

I think the unmanned drones make more sense to be custom designed rather than just unmanned fighters because an unmanned aircraft can be designed to pull significantly more g and be rather more capable than an airframe designed to carry people in it.

And simplifications can make it much cheaper too.

I guess the lesson is that in order to make an actual impact on the conflict, you need insane amounts of HE on target, round the clock.

Lots of artillery to keep their heads down, but precision is important and getting better across the board.

In terms of aircraft precision is important but heavier bombs also make a lot of sense and can deal with targets lighter bombs or missiles cannot.

You could pepper concrete fortifications with 40kg artillery shells all day, but a 3,000kg bomb and the way is cleared much faster.

Even a 500kg or 1,500kg bomb is devastating when used accurately.

Because the US and the rest of NATO are potential enemies of Russia, who are already waging war with them in Ukraine.

Well having seen the performance of western MBTs do we think a direct comparison of tank numbers means anything at all?

Most western tanks were taken out by drones... their enormous weight limited their mobility. Their diverse designs means parts to fix one tank are useless to fix any of the other tanks you have. And of course those massive turret bustles filled with ammo are inviting targets for drones worth $500 bucks.

When taking about western airpower critical things you need to include their ability to make more quickly... how many could be made right now to replace losses?

The west uses aircraft for both attack and defence and so when they lose aircraft in both attack and defence you will notice they are quickly running out of aircraft... and that drastically will effect their ability to attack and defend... do you understand that?

They are thin skinned and the loss of large numbers of men and aircraft is going to have a real effect... a real negative effect.

And of course the solidarity will collapse when countries wonder why they are fighting this American war to break Russia.

Russia used to sell you cheap energy and now you are pissing away billions of Euros to sink their subs and ships and kill their men.

Money well spent?

In the event of a war, no one asks about GDP and defense spending.

The governments will have soldiers in media offices and martial law will be in effect so you don't hear what is really happening and think you are winning... finally beating the Russians... Why does the phone line squeal and then go dead when you are talking on the phone with family in major western cities?

And if NATO started using a large part of its F-35s etc in Ukraine, Russia would start a nuclear war?

If HATO sends troops into Ukraine they will be killed... sending in F-35s would get those planes shot down and the air bases they operated from hit.

It seems that the US is less and less afraid of Sarmatians and Avangards etc.

When you are dumb as **** it is easy to be brave... especially when you have your plane tickets to south America already booked...

and Russia must outfight and outproduce the current combined MIC of western nations while only spending maybe now about a hundred and twenty billion a year and with major defense industrial and commercial handicaps.

Super sanctions and the Russian economy is growing and they are winning on the battlefield and the entire west know they are going to lose and are desperately searching for a way out...

Frontline bomber means it flies above the front, enemy front. Not 40km away and launch gliding bombs. For that thry can use mig-27 or su-24. Same result but cheaper.

Su-34 is a strike aircraft and is not supposed to be used on or near the front line... that is what the A-10s and Su-25s are supposed to be doing.

The Su-34 is just a replacement for the Su-24 which is a deep strike aircraft like the F-111 and the ground attack Tornado.

BTW I remember hearing about all the super amazing technology on the Tornado... how did it do in Desert Storm hitting runways?

I seem to remember it was shit.

The anti runway munitions required the aircraft to fly low the full length of the target runway and a few were shot down rather easily.

Kept using it quite a bit after that mind you... even though it was proven to be shit.

It's more than 1 years since it doesn't enter Ukraine.

How would you know?

BTW 3,000kg bombs being shown to hit targets deep inside the Ukraine... the only aircraft that could deliver that would be the Tu-22M3 and the Su-34.

I don't think the MiG-31BM carried bombs heavier than 1.5 ton.

Kh-31 was used since the begining but seems to reach only bad results since they switched to iskander and lancet.

Again, what information are you basing your opinion on?

Sales and usage of the Kh-31 seem rather good.

Gor the low quantity delivered, they have a very good ratio in terms of target cost per missile used.

Yeah, the west dumping all its shit on Ukraine... what good friends you are.

Ukrainians are even filming the destructions of the russian black sea fleet. Every hit is recorded. It's the reality man. Sat images show where rest of the fleet is, at port and not in Crimea.

And yet grain deliveries have not resumed despite the Russian black sea fleet being defeated, and plenty of sea launched cruise missiles hitting targets right across the Ukraine... magic I guess.

Some people claim they have more like 70 km range. It depends on the specific bomb and glide kit you are talking about.

The altitude and speed of release is rather critical too, but even 40km is a decent buffer from any air defence system.

Buk-M3 has 70 km range, not more than 75 km and both Patriot PAC 2 and Samp/t have over 100 km range.

The direction they approach the target can be varied depending on intel at the time and after release the aircraft can drop down to very low altitude and high speed to leave the area quickly.

It can also use support from other platforms in case missiles are launched in its direction to evade interception.