Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

JDAM-ER is a modified Mk 82 bomb with a wing kit in it. The SDB was purpose designed as a glide bomb. It has better aerodynamics it is as simple as that.

You can bet the UMPB also has better range than the equivalent weight FAB with UMPK.

JDAM-ER has a very good aerodynamic design and visually speaking SDB looks just like a bomb with a glider kit.

And UMPK has a horrible aerodynamic design compared to the rest.

Drag is the only thing that impacts it

I've said before that bigger bombs have more drag...

And yet, despite all the discussion, even if you consider a range of 70 km for the UMPK, the Su-34 will still have to expose itself to enemy AD to carry out a strike, so your claim that the VKS only drops bombs from safe distances remains a pile of bullshit.

Arguing with you is a huge waste of time, since you have shown yourself capable of distorting the most basic mathematics just to endorse your narratives that are completely disconnected from reality.

Arguing with a zealot is indeed a waste of time if the intention is to win the argument.

In this case however I find that discussing things with people who believe the propaganda of the enemy (and when I say enemy I mean enemy of humanity... not just enemy to Russia) leads me to think in more detail about what is happening and to get a better understanding myself.

Equally reading comments by intelligent people like yourself (Belisarius) and others like Lancelot and Mir and Seph then I learn things I didn't expect or think about myself but when spelled out make sense too.

Only reason su34 struggles with SEAD is due to old sensors and lack of upgrades

They have no excuse there, they developed the Su-35 and the Su-57 and now are working on the Su-75 and of course they also did some work on that strike aircraft to replace the Backfire too... the T-60S or something... The Su-34 should have 5th gen avionics... unless as I have mentioned before they plan to use an enlarged Su-57 for a heavy strike stealth aircraft to replace the Su-34. The Su-34 is in service in numbers and the Su-24 is still available too so I wonder why they wouldn't just further upgrade their Su-34s.

The T-60S will be redundant with the PAK DA, but the long range strike mission needs to be done properly... no false savings... like Moskva cruisers...

Look at 50 Wagner troops killed in Mali

That has nothing to do with the Russian military or ministry of defence.

And they don't have money to piss away on everything and even if they did aircraft shelters are a waste of money... any drone operator would just hit the planes that are not in shelters and no... they can't remain in shelters all the time... to be used they have to leave which makes them as vulnerable to attack as before you just spent 200 billion rubles making tens of thousands of aircraft shelters.

Plus... even with these upgrades we are talking about Su-34s will still get shot down... that is what happens in war.

BTW the American navy faced ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and drones... and the most powerful navy on the planet bravely ran away.

What do I expect from someone who thinks the MiG-35 is actually a good jet and is needed.

If light numbers fighters (MiG-35) don't make sense, the light numbers fighters (Su-75) don't make sense.

One of the most glaring examples are UMPK kits which were ready for procurement some 20 years ago, but circles in general stuff and MoD rejected to introduce it to VKS. I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't see this levels of plane losses if UMPK kits were in the arsenal since day 1 of the war.

You may be right, but to be fair they did pay for the Gefest&T upgrade to allow standard dumb bombs to be used with the precision of western guided bombs, so it is not like they were blowing the inheritance on guided weapons then or now.

They should start paying for weapons somewhat higher price, where price would include a healthy 10-15% profit margins, so weapon companies don't have to rely exclusively on exports.

There will be plenty of foreign orders from this conflict and the Syrian conflict... once they satisfy the needs of the Russian military there will be plenty of profits to be made.

What they should do is offer loans via the government rather than through the banking system so the loans allow them to buy what they need and the banks are not making so much money.... the banks probably make more money than the MIC companies so the Government taking that role and therefore reducing costs and increasing confidence should make a real difference for MIC companies.

Most glaring example would be Koalitsiya, 2S35, which is in development well over 10 years and after 2.5 years of war is nowhere to be found at the front.

Coalition isn't and wont be a game changer in this conflict and the entire recon and battle management system needed to be improved and upgraded across the board before anything made a difference.

I would say Malva is making more of a difference by delivering shells in greater volumes over shorter distances... but hitting enemy troops and moving off before they can retaliate. The Malva has its own drones and the gunner next to the gun looks at the drone feed on a screen in front of him when he fires... the target coordinates already punched in to the system before it arrives at its firing point... the gun elevates and traverses and the gun is loaded and fired and then it moves.

Toward the end of 2015 announcement was made for serial production to start in 2016. State tests that took 6(!) fricking years. All that while military in Ukraine is using en masse 60+ year old arty taken from reserve.

The targets they were shooting at didn't need better guns, and the recon and C4ISTAR wouldn't have been able to find targets 70km away for the Coalition to make a difference at the start of this conflict.

Even if you sent Coalition in day one all the upgrades and changes learned from this conflict would have needed to be applied anyway like drone cages and compatibility with drones and of course all the jammers etc.

How the west would sing and dance killing a Coalition vehicle... and for what advantage exactly?

You are the only one saying it has 40km range to downplay the importance and the fact that they are scared to get closer because they end destroyed. Various sources gice 50-70km.

The whole purpose of a glide kit is to allow the bomber that is carrying the bomb to fly over the target multiple times before releasing the bomb on its way home to maximise its chances of getting shot down.

Whoops. No. The purpose of a glide kit is to allow the aircraft carrying it to attack targets from standoff distances to make them safer from enemy air defence.

It is a bit like the standoff weapons the Rafale carries and its pretend stealth are all supposed to make it safer from enemy air defence while on missions.

Even 16km away, it's out of range of most AD that Ukraine has. Don't think Patriots or S-300 are that close to the front, they would be targeted by artillery.

Are you not paying attention?

The Patriots and S-300s they are setting up around the place keep getting hit so they now set them up but don't turn them on and use them as ambush weapons... when HATO tells them there is an approaching Russian aircraft coming from x direction that will be in range in 2 minutes... in 2 minutes time they turn on their radar and try to find the target and shoot and then shut down... of course most of the time they get destroyed but they do have a chance to hit something.

Su-34 needs to go to the garage. Su-30 also. Su-35 is the only good fighter they have. Su-57 is a diamond they will also be scared to use just like US f-22 because to shiny and expensive

Except they have been using the Su-57. Unlike the Americans, the Russians know if they can't use something then it is useless.

Of course there are things they wont use because the benefits of its use don't outweigh the risks of revealing its secrets.

Kinzhal was used because it is just an air launched Iskander for instance...

What you could say is that because of the lack of UMPK the whole offensive was blunted and this gave Ukraine more time to dig in. Increasing ground forces losses unnecessarily.

Ironically the introduction of the glide kits with FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 bombs means they can take all the time they want to dig in... it is just going to provide the defenders with a deeper grave.

Attrition of Su-25 and attack helicopters was much worse. And that is the real problem in terms of aircraft losses. But like other people have pointed out, in comparison with other major conflicts like Vietnam the helicopter losses aren't as high either.

There were a lot of own goals in Georgia 2008 and I suspect a few losses in this conflict will also be own goals... it is something every military needs to deal with... the US deals with it by lying and then denial, but the Russians actually investigate and learn real lessons and implement solutions that solve the problems.

What must be stopped of course is the current fetish of selling a system for below cost to get the contract only to lose money on production and sales to the government afterwards. The government needs accurate prices.

I think the procurement history of the Russian military is pretty good. They had the option of the Mi-28 and the more expensive Ka-52. They bought both and used them for slightly different roles.

I think current combat experience has shown that was a good decision.

They funded MiG to develop the MiG-35 and like it or not they bought 6 aircraft and put them into service for testing.

They could have gone cheap and bought MiG-29Ms which could have been build in serial production and in numbers already, but they were in no hurry when the order was made so they ordered the best available at the time which was the MiG-35.

You have to be really stupid to think that improvised wings will make a 1.5/3 ton bomb glide for 70 km.
PAC-2 has a range of 160 km!
Put a Patriot battery 50 km from the front and it will still have the range to attack aircraft over 100 km behind Russian lines while staying out of range of any Russian artillery/drones.

Only an American with a stealth fetish would talk about bombing a long range SAM site... Kh-31 in the current anti radiation missile version will reach that PAC-2 radar with ease while remaining outside of its reach by a comfortable margin. Kh-58 in its current models will do the same...

Patriots are using shoot and run tactics.

No they are not and anyone who knew anything about the Patriot would laugh at you saying that might even be possible.

Patriots are using ambush tactics but they are using shoot and die tactics... they don't give a **** how much those things cost... they are not paying for them...

But if you think you can launch a missile and then just pick up and move any useful distance immediately I have a bridge to sell to you.

Early warning radars like p-18 are hunted by kh-35 which proved to be much better than kh-31.

Nah, it just shows you don't know much about SEAD. P-18s are not very mobile so hitting the ground they are sitting on is quicker and easier than trying to develop an ARM that will operate in that frequency range.

Against stationary targets the Kh-35 makes sense. Against high frequency tracking radars the Kh-31 is the missile of choice and flys at three times faster than the subsonic Kh-35 over a similar range.

Russians can fly safe 10km away from the front most of the time, ukro will tfy to shoot them only when they detect the use of glide bombs or missiles or if a radar was quickly turned on in the area.

It the nazis could detect glide bombs they wouldn't be so horribly vulnerable to their effects...

Get over it. SU-34 sucks big time. Totally useless.

The fact that they currently are using it rather intensely suggest that your opinion and Nazi propaganda is wrong on this one.

Its work can be done by the su-35 which brings real multirole capability or the older su-24 which save money by not buying su-34.

If Russia was losing Su-34s to enemy fire it would be more because of the missions it is performing... meaning using Su-35s for the mission instead would increase the loss rates of the Su-35 to even higher because it is not actually designed for such missions.

But that is likely what the Orc propaganda is all about... how naive to think changing the publics mind on an aircraft would actually effect Russian tactics... like they read this and other forums to decide what to do next.

HILARIOUS.  

As for, government paying for technical upgrades to the factories, it went so well that they're doing these upgrades in the middle of the war.

What are you saying... they should stop doing upgrades in the middle of conflicts?

But during conflicts is when you find out what works and what does not. What is useful tool and what is window dressing.

Let me remind you that about 20 years ago, a major upgrade to Msta called Iset ( with completely new cannon barrel with longer range and better ballistics,) that was completely ready to go,was cancelled in favor of Koalitsiya.

That is  normal. Upgrades to the MiG-25 were cancelled because the MiG-31 made upgrades to the MiG-25 redundant.

(The MIG-25 has 11 ton thrust engines... imagine its performance with the 15 ton thrust engines of the MIG-31?)

They clearly had a requirement for a longer ranged system and perhaps looked at a longer barrel for MSTA and perhaps even an evolution of 2S5, but decided on Coalition instead.

Most artillery work is not done at 100km range... it is not accurate enough to be effective at these super ranges without guided shells anyway.

The west has found its amazing long range artillery is not so amazing when its shells get captured by the enemy and they start jamming the guidance systems that make them accurate.

Ukraine stopped using Excalibr because they were being jammed and they couldn't hit anything with them.

Too bad for all the European super guns that relied on those shells to hit anything at max range.

In the meantime, they were developing two versions of Koalitsiya, single and double barreled. Double barreled was canceled in 2010 (!). Fourteen years ago.

The land based twin barrel system was cancelled because it would not fit into transport planes. The single barrel model was smaller and lighter and cheaper and slightly simpler.

The twin barrel version might make an appearance on a destroyer when they are ready.

One more thing, regarding UMPK kit. I've checked and Bazalt offered ready  UMPK kit for FAB62-500 in Air India already in 2003 and ready and finalized 4 versions in MAKS 2009!!!

They weren't used or needed in Syria. Just as well they had been working on them to make them ready for this conflict where they will be rather useful in smashing fortifications.

Su-34 firing stand off weapons and using kh-35 against a radar. This could have been done by a much better su-35 or a far cheaper yak-130/su-24.

The mission planners clearly thought the mission requires Su-34s and they have had no problem sending other aircraft types to do the job in the past.

Btw - glide bombs in Russia is no exactly a new thing, but they only started using them when the long range SAM threat has been diminished.
Even the RBK-500U-SPBEK is a glide bomb with extendable wings. Glide kits like the Module-A were available well before 2010 -other kits even earlier.

Part of the reason the glide kits for dumb bombs were not pushed into service urgently is because they have an entire range of glide bombs being developed including the Grom guided bombs based on the Kh-38 missile body, as well as Drel.

Also of course the Gefest&T system means they can fly high and drop bombs in COIN type operations to hit targets accurately and cheaply using dumb unguided bombs.

A glide kit just makes it easier and only slightly more expensive than not using a glide kit on a dumb bomb.

The fact is, the idea that Russian aircraft don't need to expose themselves to enemy AD to launch guided bombs is bullshit.

The MiG-25RB was probably the first Soviet/Russian aircraft to use a Gefest&T type bomb aiming system. It used special bombs with heat resistant fuses so it could drop bombs at mach 2.5 plus speeds from high altitude.

I would guess the MiG-31BM could possibly match the MiG-25RB... it is supposed to be able to carry 9 tons of bombs... specifically which included four 1,500kg bombs under wing pylons and two 1,500kg bombs under the belly hard points.

Releasing bombs from 18km altitude at mach 2.5 should give them a good boost and long flight range... adding glide kits would introduce accuracy and further improve range.

The UPAB-1500 is a 1.5 ton bomb with a TV seeker in the nose with X shaped wings that is a glide bomb. It has a range of 70km.

For the MPK glide kits they describe several kit options including the simplest and cheapest being a non folding wing and no guidance. the range is 6-7km when dropped at low altitude... sort of a replacement for parachute retard system so the aircraft doesn't have to overfly the target.

The second version has simple inertial navigation enabling accuracy to hit targets 12-15km away. The third version has satellite navigation and can correct its flight path enabling a range of 40-60km when released from high altitude.

The most advanced/expensive/long range option includes a pulsejet motor to boost range performance to 80-100km.

if I ask you to throw a tennis ball and then a basketball, which one will you be able to throw further?

A better example would be with things that have significant weight differences... an inflated balloon and a golf ball for instance.

The weight of the 3 ton bombs actually works in their favour when released at high speed and high altitude because the drag is less of an influence.

I have walked around a corner in high winds and had a young lady blown into my arms... the wind stopped her and pushed her into me, but didn't push me over.

She was probably 20kgs and I am 125kgs. I don't get blown around by the wind speeds we normally have here.

(Not saying I am superman and can walk through hurricanes and tornadoes, but weight matters).

Not to mention that even with 70km range, a flanker armed with UMPK is still forced to come within range of systems like the Patriot to carry out an attack.

No Russian plane would attack a Patriot battery with a glide bomb unless it is the rocket boosted Grom glide bomb with a range of 110km, but even then likely he will use a Kh-31 which can hit targets 250km away and moves at mach 3.5... and is an anti radiation missile.

You must think the Ukrainians have Patriot SAMs growing on trees or something. They only have a limited number of such systems. 70km is enough to get out of NASAMs, Buk, etc range.

it seems it is infectious... only a fool would try to hit air defence missiles with glide bombs.

Russia has a range of anti radiation missiles specifically designed for the task of taking out radars associated with all western SAMs... why use 3,000kg glide bombs to take out a radar?

A FAB-50 would take out a radar antenna.

Large bombs with large wings also have greater drag, and this also impacts range. Ukraine has received 4 Patriot batteries with another 3 on the way, and I'm not even taking into account the fact that there are multiple signs that deliveries from the West are much larger than announced.

They could have a million Patriots... still does not make sense to try to take them out with glide bombs intended to destroy fortified trenches and bunkers on a frontline.

Someone didn't study Newton.

I am a Newton expert...

Supposedly it’s installed, but no confirmation of use on in service borts

Just because you can't see something on operational birds does not mean there is not something else performing the same job.

Electronic warfare (EW) has been greatly improved by adding a new removable pod that is mounted on one of the 12 suspension points of the aircraft. The Khibina electronic warfare complex on the wingtips, complements the new electronic warfare complex.

Pods actually make sense because they are easier to replace and upgrade.

Note: To expect something like the Mig-35 or lately even the Yak-130 to replace the Su-34 is beyond delusional!

Well that is what we are dealing with... anyone would think those suggesting the MiG-35 made sense are actually suggesting all Russian aircraft projects be cancelled and all current aircraft retired so the MiG-35 can be put into service.

The MiG-35 was never intended to replace the Su-30 or Su-35 or the Su-34... it is going to do the jobs those planes shouldn't be doing now.

Would add that the idea of using the Su-34 to perform missions the Su-25 is doing is just as stupid.

Even the Americans wanted F-16s to do the job of the A-10 but never suggested the F-15E or F-111 replace the A-10.

Weight has no impact on the speed of objects falling... All objects fall at the same speed. Drag is the only thing that impacts it and the gravitation of earth.

Go back to school.

So a helium filled balloon and a rock fall at the same speed do they?

I guess a guy jumping out of a plane should not bother with a parachute because that only makes him heavier.

A brick and a feather would disagree!

He didn't pay attention in school. Gravity acts on all objects the same but there is something called an atmosphere that changes that.

On the moon or in a vaccuum he is right a rock and a feather and a helium filled balloon would all fall at the same rate... but on earth inside the atmosphere the balloon would go up the brick would go straight down and the feather would slowly flutter to the ground.

If you take two playing cards and hold one flat and one end on pointing down the flat card will descend much slower than the card pointing down which might turn sideways and flip a couple of times but will hit the ground first.

And UMPK has a horrible aerodynamic design compared to the rest.

It is not designed to hit targets on different continents. It merely gives standoff range most of the time to evade MANPADS and SHORADS.



I have been asked to trim this thread, but I am not going to.

If I start removing posts from LSOS because I think he is wrong or don't agree with him then I would be trimming a lot of threads from a lot of members... and that is just censorship.

Let LSOS be wrong and try to learn from the comments and discussions.

Remember to keep it civil though.

Nope... drag depend on the aerodynamics. A square piece of metal of 1m put against the wind will have more drag than a Tu-160. Again you lack common physics studies.

I understand what you are trying to say but a 1m square piece of metal in an airflow face on would generate quite a bit of drag, but if you took the four 25 ton thrust engines of the Tu-160 blackjack to push that 1m square of metal through the air I think you will find it will get supersonic just due to brute force thrust.

BTW the funny thing about physics is that a piece of metal flat on 1m by 1m does not have a RCS or 1sqm.

If you think there is more drag on a 1m by 1m piece of metal than on an enormous bomber then you are not applying your physics knowledge properly... the Tu-160 is certainly much better shaped aerodynamically than a flat square of metal, but there is more to drag than that.

Even with a 40km range bomb they will be safe from AD. Simply by flying low, accelerating to mach 1, going high releasing bombs and going low again. All that out of range of most Ukro SAM but Patriot and S-300 which are present in few samples and mostly turned off.

The point is that the orcs have a wide range of functioning air defence systems that are not obvious and not revealed until they open fire... by which time it is difficult to evade or defeat them every time.

The Su-34 can't see systems well hidden that are not emitting signals so while it is focussed on launching glide bombs at fortifications or targets on or near the front line or further back an enemy air defence system can pop up anywhere around them... they might even wait till after it has flown past them.

The video above shows a FAB-3000 being used with a glide kit and while much of the flight is rather low, when it actually releases the bombs the sky is dark... meaning rather high altitude to darken the sky like that... flying at very high altitude anywhere will massively increase the range at which you can be detected or intercepted with any long range SAM system... so climb, release, descend and leave.

I wouldn't call that combat proven if it has launched kh-69 from hundreds km away.

But that is what it is supposed to do. Do you think it is not combat proven till it takes over from the Su-25 and performs CAS missions?

It's like those nato combat proven stuff that were used only against some dudes with AKs in the desert.

No it isn't, because those dudes don't have HATO C4ISTAR systems in support and modern air defence systems of the west dotted all over the enemy territory with HATO planners trying to get a kill.

Su-57 won't be used in any way it could be lost.

It will be used for very specific roles including recon with its AESA radar antenna arrays (it has 5 of them) as well as EO systems that also need to be tested in a real environment as well as its SEAD capabilities and its ability to be hard to find.

They wont be using them for CAS as I mentioned but if it cant do what it was designed to do in this conflict then it is not much use because that is the role of the heavy 5th gen fighter... to secure air superiority against enemy aircraft.

Israel does not seem to use its F-35s that way in Syria... they should be using their stealth and drop bombs on S-300 and BUK batteries... but instead they don't even enter Syrian airspace and use standoff weapons like a coward...

They will be kept for safe situations or nuclear wars.

Conventional aircraft don't have a big role in a nuclear war... just defend your airspace while your nukes fry your enemies populations.

Agree. But Su-34 wasn't designed for such things. Rafale was.

It is not the aircraft, it is the weapon. With a jet powered glide bomb kit you could use MS-21 airliners or Il-476s to deliver standoff precision bomb attacks with no need for expensive military aircraft at all...

How many 3 ton glide bombs can a Rafale carry at one time BTW?

The Su-34 is used because the only other platform able to carry a 3 ton bomb or two would be the Tu-22M3 and that costs even more per flight hour to operate, so in that sense the Su-34 is cheaper.

Since those fancy mission it was designed for were totally stop after seeing plenty of them get shot down they switched for a nato strategy, launching glide bombs from safe distance.

That is HATO strategy because they now know stealth does not work. HATO strategy was to fly over Russian and Soviet air defence systems and drop cheap dumb bombs on them, but they now know their expensive stealthy planes would get shot down before they got anywhere near the target.

Look at the Russian reports... they are shooting down French Hammer glide bombs and HIMARS rockets and Storm shadow missiles... the Russian air defence is not perfect but most western weapons can't get through reliably most of the time.

In comparison the Ukraine has air defence systems HATO countries don't have in service yet and yet they still ask for more because it is not enough to stop the Russian weapons... including ancient ones like the Kh-22M which has been in service for 40 years plus.

Since there, there is no need for a su-34. A su-35 can launch the same way such bombs and they would have more su-35 which is better for other tasks.

You keep saying that too but that is not true either. If the Su-35 could do what the Su-34 does then I agree there would be no need for both.

Is it not pretty obvious from the fact that they do make and do use both that the Su-34 is a different aircraft with different capabilities?

Only bad thing is Su-35 is more expebsive so they would have less fighters but su-75 should fill the gap. Su-34 to the garage.

How can the Su-75 fill any gaps... it hasn't even flown yet.

Would be true if they weren't using iskanders and lancet against such radars instead of kh-31.

How many Iskanders or Lancets can an Su-35 or Su-30 or Su-34 carry?

Are their air to air missiles useless too because they keep shooting things down with ground launched SAMs?

The Kh-31 is an excellent missile and they carry it on the missions they are flying, but it is a self defence missile to be used if the enemy surprises the aircraft carrying it.

The Iskander and Lancet are used for hunting enemy air defence systems. They are used for SEAD, while Kh-31 is a self defence missile to protect the aircraft performing other missions attacking other targets.

IMO it seems their EW suite is shitty at distinguishing true radars from dummy ones

The last time the Soviets fought the nazis the Soviets were pretty good at decoys and dummy systems... do you think the Ukrainians have forgotten?

You can put simple emitters to make a dummy look very real as long as you don't climb inside and have a look.

HATO smashed decoys over and over in the conflict in Kosovo... was there something wrong with your EW suites?

I mean HATO claimed time after time to be destroying the entire Serb military over and over and then when it ended they all came out and seemed to be just fine... lots of microwave ovens destroyed though.

They detect them and the direction from where they come once they hit the target.

Which is completely useless... they can neither shoot them down or evacuate the target area... essentially they get buried in a ready made grave.

Most ukro early warning is people with phones.

But they have the might of the entire HATO C4ISTAR behind them... satellites and all...

Su-34 has a huge radar to even thonk about pebetrating enemy airspace.

You might have noticed they fly low where you need an airborne radar to spot them from any distance and there are not a lot of airborne radar inside Ukraininan airspace that they can use... often.

Now it only use glide bombs from safe distance. Su-35 can do this just as easily and much more. Su-34 is useless, brings nothing.

They have a wide range of air launched guided weapons that the Su-34 can and does use against a wide range of targets... these glide kits for dumb bombs are used widely because their effect is devastating and they are so cheap, but they have an enormous range of other weapon type they can carry and use.

Maybe should have listen more to the teacher during reading courses in 1st grade. I wrote drag was the only impacting parameter.

So when you said everything falls at the same rate what you meant was things fall at different rates in air... which essentially acts like a very thin fluid medium.

At very high speed its effect becomes rather more substantial and influential.

And UMPK has a horrible aerodynamic design compared to the rest.

Aesthetically it might look terrible, but structurally it would need to be solid and aerodynamically it would need to be pretty sound to make a decent difference in performance.

It has to be able to be fitted to a range of dumb bomb shapes and not interfere with attaching and releasing the bomb from the wing. The fins need to unfold in a safe and reliable manner that doesn't result in the bomb pitching up and hitting the aircraft releasing it.

From what I have seen it looks rather elegant and efficient and it reportedly very cheap and effective... which is what I have come to expect from many Russian and Soviet weapon systems.

Same thing applies to Su-30SM, where they're allegedly already delivering SM2 upgrade, but without engine and Irbis radar !?

I thought they decided that the upgrade for the Su-30 was simply to use the engines and radar and systems of the Su-35 so a Su-35 and Su-30 could operate together and everything would be essentially the same and fully compatible. The Su-30 essentially becoming a two seat Su-35, where the extra seat perhaps reduces max flight range by a marginal amount... which is acceptable because it has excellent range anyway and the extra crewman can be useful for some roles including operational training.

I would say it would make sense to introduce the same engines to the Su-34 and also the self defence avionics if they are better to improve commonality and support too. The Su-34 will have a radar optimised for ground attack as that is its role.

Turn off the engines of any plane at 800km/h and keeps going straight.

Throw a square metal piece 1x1m or any size you want nd it will go few hundreds meter and just stop moving horizontally and just fall down.

A plane has less drag.

You are talking about a thin sheet of metal 1x1m... if it was 11km long and 1x1m in width and height if you got it up to 800km/h it would keep moving at 880km/h for quite some time.

Turn off the engines on any plane and it will slow down based on its mass... the heavier it is the slower it will slow down because the more momentum it has to push the air aside.

A thin sheet of metal 1 x 1 m will slow down rapidly because it lacks mass and has a high drag, but if it had high mass the drag would not slow it down so much.

You can throw a base ball further than you can throw a basketball because the smaller ball has less drag but it is also easier to throw.

A balloon as very high drag and very low mass... when you throw it, because it is light it accelerates quickly, but when you release it it also slows down quickly.

A golf ball is small and has much lower drag but also much higher mass so hitting it with a golf club with a force that would burst the balloon you can send the golf ball several hundred metres easily if you hit it into the air. Using a putter along the ground and the ball will not travel hundreds of metres no matter how hard you smack it.

Physics is fun but it is also complicated.

They have almost nothing in range to hit above russian terrain but some few long range system they can't use effectively. If you think a S-300 or Patriot is that easy to use on the front where there are drones, mlrs, missiles with no early warning radar... very easy to evade actually if you plan your attacks correctly.

Air Defence is a complex subject but what Kiev is doing is not really air defence any more... it is hide and seek ambush stuff that will occasionally get a surprise kill, but most of the time is suicide for the air defence battery. Look at the kill feeds.

Su-57 has no role in Ukraine. Thry were dumb enough to keep around and it got hit on the ground.

Su-35 can take care of everything. Su-27, mig-29 and f-16 are targets for the su-35.

The Su-34 can carry the same long range AAM as the Su-35 and all of the same missiles, so why do you think it can't do the same as what the Su-35s are doing?

They don't have it above russia. Awacs in Romania can't detect anything above the Donbas and behind.

Why would they use Su-34s to hit the Donbass and behind?

Israeli uses very effectively their old f-16, let alone f-35. They manage to blow up everything, anywhere.

At standoff ranges against an air defence that was considerably inferior to the Russian air defence system.

Their air force is much better than russian air force in terms of coordination and planning.

Based on what?

3 tons bombs are useless. If they have a guidancz with 10m CEP then 500kg is fine for 99% of the targets. If you need more just use two of them. 3 ton bombs are for propaganda and psy purposes. Nothing more.

When the enemy have dug in in serious concrete fortifications then the bigger the bomb the more useful it is.

A 3 ton bomb will degrade a bunker system that 50kg 152mm artillery shells wont even crack.

Three ton bombs is why the Ukrainian military is slowly rolling back because there is no fortification they can remain in that will stay intact when hit with such bombs.

If they only had artillery or even just 500kg bombs things would be taking rather longer than they are.

There a tons of videos of russian last gen AD getting smashed. Tor operating their radar destroyed, S-400 destroyed, Pantsir destroyed. Of course they interczpt some bombs/missiles but at the end if your AD can't touch the planes and intercept only even 90% the missiles/bombs you will quickly run out of AD system.

They have been at war for over three years now there are a handful of videos showing TOR and Pantsir systems that were overwhelmed or just ran out of missiles or were very unlucky. One S-400 vehicle was hit and you would think everything was OK because F-35s work now because obviously S-400s are easy to defeat because once in 3 years they hit one vehicle.

A bit like how they smashed russian ships. At the rate they used to destroy them they would have lost all tge fleet in few months if they hadn't move all of them out of Crimea further east.

Over the three years the number of ships lost permanently is tiny, most are back in operation and doing their job and they are all still operating at sea stopping grain transports to and from Ukraine...

Su-34 can't go bombs enemy airfields,

Su-34 has a wide range of standoff weapons to devastate enemy airfields including cluster munition weapons with cratering and land mine munitions to punch holes in runways and destroy any vehicles trying to repair the holes.

Those glide kits are currently being attached to dumb iron bombs but they can also be attached to clusterbombs too.

it can't fight new jets because it has very bad air to air capabilities compare to modern f-22/35, rafale and Typhoons. It's left to use glide bombs.

It is not a dogfighter, but it can carry all the lethal long range AAMs that the Su-35 can carry.

With a fleet of su-35 they have more flexibility specially for russia that is not buying that many fighters.

Only buying one fighter types by definition means less flexibility.

The Russia military continues to upgrade and improve all its aircraft and continues to produce Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, and Su-57 aircraft.

The su-34 is a piece of crap that is kept at safe distance from the enemy.

No plane wants to have to get close to a target whether it is an air or ground target... suggesting the Su-34 is a piece of crap because it does not get close to its targets is like saying the Rafale is crap because it needs Meteor to keep it a safe distance from enemy aircraft.

Kh-31 is a SEAD missile, not self defence. It pathetic that you come up with such dumb statements just because you can't admit it's not doing the work.

So an Su-24 carrying self defence R-60 AAMs is actually a fighter is it?

Strike aircraft and aircraft on a range of missions where they might fly near enemy air defence systems will take a self defence ARM to defend themselves from air defence systems. Most of the time the launch of which will force the air defence system to turn its radar off which generally makes the chances of survival for the attacking aircraft much higher even if it doesn't destroy the air defence system it makes it blind for a few seconds to allow the aircraft to escape the air defence envelope of the system.

The Kh-31 is a SEAD missile but a SEAD missile can be used in attack and defence... when you are out hunting for enemy AD systems then you can load up 4 or 6 Kh-31s and go hunting, but as you can see from most videos most Russian aircraft carry a single Kh-31 so that if it gets scanned by a ground based radar system it can launch its Kh-31 and continue on its mission.

Su-35 can also use them. And it can hit enemy planes. Su-34 is shit compare to it.

So you keep saying...

Not really. Satelitte cn detect the take off but not the plane in flight. Neother their awacs can detect them this far.

But HATO Jedi Magic is amazing and does everything....

Actually drag would impact the horizontal speed since they would fly at 800km/h left and right but not up and down. Vertically with the wing they should fall 1m/s or something like that so drag wouldn't impact the vertical speed.

Drag increases with speed.

Think of the atmosphere as very thin water, though air can compress and water does not. If you stick your hand out the window of a car at 20km/h you feel a light breeze... stick it out at 100km/h and it is quite a force... holding your hand flat with your palm down it cuts through the air but angle it up slightly or down slightly and you can feel the lifting force and the downward force your hand creates in the wind. The more the speed increases the higher the force you can generate... Increase the area of your hand and you increase the lifting force you create.

With enough wing 100km/h is easily enough to allow you to fly in a vehicle that weighs several tons. The An-2 has a stall speed of 75km/h for instance.

Since they are not powered, and release probably around mach 0.8-1.5, you can easily calculate the range. Drag should be low since they are bombs designed to be carried by plane so not be draggy.

The ideal bullet shape is bullet shaped... pointed at the front and long and narrow and quite dense and heavy to retain speed.

A heavier object normally does not go far because it is too heavy to accelerate to a speed that you could accelerate a lighter object to.

For instance a golf ball can be thrown quite a distance because it is small and relatively dense. A hollow plastic ball the same size would not go as far because of its lower density would mean it has less momentum pushing the air in front of it aside as it moves through the air so it slows down faster.

A solid lead ball the size of a golf ball would probably not go as far as a golf ball because it would be too heavy to accelerate to the same speed you could accelerate a golf ball by throwing it.

When released from a plane a 250kg bomb and a 500kg bomb and a 1,500kg bomb and a 3,000kg bomb will all be released at the same speed.

That means the heavier bombs will go further because it will take them longer to slow down... they all have wings keeping them airborne and the drag on them wont be massively different because they will all be flying end on so while the 3000kg bomb is much bigger it is much longer and not a lot wider so it will move through the air more efficiently.

Let's say, in theory, that you can squeeze enough power from AL31 for new, more powerful, radar.

They have been working on AESA radars for quite some time and also aircraft like the MiG-25 and MiG-31 have always needed a lot of electrical power, but that comes down to the systems that generate electricity from the jet engines... and I would say over the years they have improved those simply because everything is changing to electric these days.

There was a competition between the Tu-22M3 and the Il-76 for a jamming role and the winner was the Il-76. Having four 12 ton thrust engines meant they could generate more electricity from four engines than from two even though those two were the amazing NK-25s with 25 tons of thrust each...

12 x 4 = 48 tons, while the Tu-22M3 has 2 x 25 ton thrust engines... 50 tons of thrust... but they got more electrical power from the four 12 ton thrust engines...

I really hope that this is just someone's made up BS and Su-30SM2 gets Irbis radar.

My understanding of the Su-30 upgrade was a unification of systems and equipment so putting anything other than the radar and engines and systems from the Su-35 into the Su-30 really does not make sense to me.

But then the Tu-22M3 should be using the same engines the Tu-160 uses... both engines and both aircraft are made by the same companies respectively... why did they need two different engines of the same size and power?

Now they have to upgrade and maintain two different engines essentially doing the same job.

What is Russia's protocol for NOT filming casualties in the event of a NATO attack?

NATO propaganda outlets have just released a video of what appears to be a destroyed Su-34. Someone walked right close to the supposed Su-34 debris and started Filming.

There have been lots of incidents where American F-35s have crashed but there is NOT a single instance where there is someone filming the plane debris and posting it on social media

I'm sure it is Crystal clear by now that such footage gives the Enemy Propaganda points, so therefore Russia needs to tighten up its grip on its military facilities and BAN any attempts to take footage of any damage done by the Enemy. If someone is caught filming, CUT OFF THEIR LIMBS AND FEED THEM TO THE DOGS