Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

caveat emptor wrote:Some confirmation for claims that AMCXXL and Lsos put forward about lost Su-34, is published on Serbian military forum by one of the members that went through all posts in the forum on Ukraine war (over 6500 pages) and found that ending with July 15, 2024 23 Su-34 were shot down, majority of them during first year of war. All with pictures and most of them with names and photos of the crew.

Even if those numbers were true they can easily replace those airframe losses with existing production. Even at peacetime production rates.

A much bigger issue is replacing the pilots. There is a dearth of trainer aircraft.

caveat emptor wrote:Some confirmation for claims that AMCXXL and Lsos put forward about lost Su-34, is published on Serbian military forum by one of the members that went through all posts in the forum on Ukraine war (over 6500 pages) and found that ending with July 15, 2024 23 Su-34 were shot down, majority of them during first year of war. All with pictures and most of them with names and photos of the crew.

Now it remains to compare this number with the number of sorties flown by the Su-34 during this period. Then compare it with the losses of the US and other countries' aviation in similar situations... Oh, wait - but they've never fought in such an air defense environment.

The closest is probably Iraq, where the West's advantage was huge and the losses are greater than the VKS currently has after more than 2 years of war. Iraq was incomparably weaker than Ukraine.Only for a long time VKS has been operating only at the front with its own AD cover and has not ventured deep into Ukraine. There is no such need, however, if the losses were greater, Ukraine could make some ambushes deep into the territory, they still have some AD systems.

There is nothing to compare.
I was describing it a while ago.
IADS system was named KARI and constructed by a French Thomson. It could provide data for up to 40 (FORTY) targets simultaneously. A whole system was designed to operate against Israel and Iran, and the fact determined a whole radar/missile coverage. Leaving a giant gaps, including the fact that a whole southern direction was de facto uncovered.
The sole location with a serious AD was Baghdad, with 58 SAM batteries. That was more than the whole other locations combined, and almost half of ALL the Iraq SAM systems.
Iraq was defeated even before the hostilities started, with entire secret data transfer from French, German, and Netherland subcontractors.
Still, when the war ended, KERI still operated, and Iraq kept more than 450 SAM systems operational.
NATO/US has never experienced an opponent with such high potential, and so little technical advantage as Russkie faced in 404. Ukrainian AD system was second only to Russian and Belarussian. They still operate more NATO-supplied systems than Germany and France, not to mention Soviet heritage ones that proved exceptional survivability and effectiveness.

Edit : just as a background. The US has lost 10 000 aircraft in Vietnam. That is almost FOUR a DAY. I just try to imagine what you all pussies would do if applied to the situation

Edit : just as a background. The US has lost 10 000 aircraft in Vietnam. That is almost FOUR a DAY. I just try to imagine what you all pussies would do if applied to the situation wrote:

A terrifying number, but the most interesting thing is that Vietnam had rather weaker AD than Ukraine in 2022 and beyond.

The other part - of those 23, I’d say half are from crashes and accidents

What crashes or accidents? Those don't come into this statistics. These are planes confirmed as shot down over Ukrainian territory. Some were maybe shot down by friendly fire, but that's all.
For example, from 6 Su-35, 3 were lost due to friendly fire.

Belisarius wrote:

Now it remains to compare this number with the number of sorties flown by the Su-34 during this period.

With over 100 operational Su-34s, each capable of flying multiple sorties per day, for over two and a half years, I would be surprised if the number of losses amounts to even 0.01% of the total number of combat sorties.

What a pathetic attempt to save the face. Copium hard...

24 out 156 serial produced (according to wiki) is more than 10% of the fleet lost.

lancelot wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:Some confirmation for claims that AMCXXL and Lsos put forward about lost Su-34, is published on Serbian military forum by one of the members that went through all posts in the forum on Ukraine war (over 6500 pages) and found that ending with July 15, 2024 23 Su-34 were shot down, majority of them during first year of war. All with pictures and most of them with names and photos of the crew.

Even if those numbers were true they can easily replace those airframe losses with existing production. Even at peacetime production rates.

A much bigger issue is replacing the pilots. There is a dearth of trainer aircraft.

Tell me why replace a plane that was easily destroyed by the same plane.

Isos wrote:Tell me why replace a plane that was easily destroyed by the same plane.

It is called attrition. Learn about it.
The Soviets lost a lot of T-34s during WW2. Which did not mean it was not a good tank.

Isos wrote:

Belisarius wrote:

Now it remains to compare this number with the number of sorties flown by the Su-34 during this period.

With over 100 operational Su-34s, each capable of flying multiple sorties per day, for over two and a half years, I would be surprised if the number of losses amounts to even 0.01% of the total number of combat sorties.

What a pathetic attempt to save the face. Copium hard...

24 out 156 serial produced (according to wiki) is more than 10% of the fleet lost.

Not all are in the upgraded version.
Also, I wonder why don't they upgrade their Su24 with precision capabilities? It seems the bottle neck is in the upgrade kits and not the airframes themselves.

william.boutros wrote:

Not all are in the upgraded version.
Also, I wonder why don't they upgrade their Su24 with precision capabilities? It seems the bottle neck is in the upgrade kits and not the airframes themselves.

They are already old and, practically, not used in Ukraine. They were relegated to use in Syria or donated to SyAF. They don't have many left in active service.

lancelot wrote:

Isos wrote:Tell me why replace a plane that was easily destroyed by the same plane.

It is called attrition. Learn about it.
The Soviets lost a lot of T-34s during WW2. Which did not mean it was not a good tank.

They better replace ka-52 that are really doing their job.

More su-35 and more upgraded su-24 will take over su-34'only mission, which is launching glide bombs from stand off range, pretyy easily.

Even if it was 3 million soties, what's the point ?

After loosing a huge quantity the first if thel, they stopped going inside Ukraine with that plane.

The number of used glide bombs is something like 3-4000 thousands. The other 175000 sorties are done for what ? Nothing.

Su-35 could launch those gliding bombs and will still be there for air superiority mission with their r-37M that actually help people on the ground.

They even manage to enter Kursk and those su-34 aren't doing their job even though ukrainians are marching in columns right across russian fields. They used Iskanders against them when a su-34 should have been sent with 10 bombs and provide constant monitoring. Any ruble invested in that aircraft is a lost ruble.

Isos wrote:Even if it was 3 million soties, what's the point ?
After loosing a huge quantity the first if thel, they stopped going inside Ukraine with that plane.
The number of used glide bombs is something like 3-4000 thousands. The other 175000 sorties are done for what ? Nothing.

Jesus holly crisp, you are either dumber than one can imagine or just so obsessed with your idea fixes that no common sense arrives into your muddy brain.
This is a conflict on a scale nobody in NATO fought since Korean war.
No-fukin-body.
Both sides involve more than 1.5 mln soldiers spread across 1200 km frontline.
No country NATO attacked, ever, had a potential so much on pair as we are facing now.
Ukraine operated THOUSANDS air defense systems of all types and tiers, and was supplied with the shocking number of NATO produced ones.
NATO delivered more systems to 404 than France operates, including some of those being the most advanced we have in arsenals - in the case of Iris it is not even adopted in Germany yet.
All of NATO command and control subsystems are providing recon to the Ukro side - we don't have anything better to be used in a case of a major war with Russkie.
Even if we consider the most pussy shit talk you can find out there, it will turn out that Russkie total losses are in a range of 100 aircraft of all kinds. Including malfunctions, friendly fire, and sabotage.
That is on pair to what the coalition has lost in Desert Storm in fukin 2 months, facing an opponent who was a shade of Ukrainian power. And who was delivered to a coalition on a silver plate by the west European subcontractors that have built the entire AD, communication, and command system of Hussain. Every single data center, every single command station, every single communication hub location, and technical details have been provided to the coalition before the campaign, making a planning process a fukin park visit.
In Korea, coalition has lost about 3000 planes, making a thousand per year - or 3 per DAY.
In Vietnam US losses were FOUR aircraft a DAY.
Russkie losses in this 2.5 year campaign are shockingly low, and this is crystal clear to any professional.
Su-34 proved to be a formidable weapon system, delivering a giant share of all ordnance in this conflict.
Which is why those have not only being ordered at increased scale, but upgraded according to the conflict lessons learned.
You lack a single clue and historical/technical perspective on the matter, and all you can provide to this community is an endless show of arrogance.
It is actually pathetic rather than anything else, but it is your choice how to present yourself in front of multinational community.

ALAMO wrote:

Isos wrote:Even if it was 3 million soties, what's the point ?
After loosing a huge quantity the first if thel, they stopped going inside Ukraine with that plane.
The number of used glide bombs is something like 3-4000 thousands. The other 175000 sorties are done for what ? Nothing.

Jesus holly crisp, you are either dumber than one can imagine or just so obsessed with your idea fixes that no common sense arrives into your muddy brain.
This is a conflict on a scale nobody in NATO fought since Korean war.
No-fukin-body.
Both sides involve more than 1.5 mln soldiers spread across 1200 km frontline.
No country NATO attacked, ever, had a potential so much on pair as we are facing now.
Ukraine operated THOUSANDS air defense systems of all types and tiers, and was supplied with the shocking number of NATO produced ones.
NATO delivered more systems to 404 than France operates, including some of those being the most advanced we have in arsenals - in the case of Iris it is not even adopted in Germany yet.
All of NATO command and control subsystems are providing recon to the Ukro side - we don't have anything better to be used in a case of a major war with Russkie.
Even if we consider the most pussy shit talk you can find out there, it will turn out that Russkie total losses are in a range of 100 aircraft of all kinds. Including malfunctions, friendly fire, and sabotage.
That is on pair to what the coalition has lost in Desert Storm in fukin 2 months, facing an opponent who was a shade of Ukrainian power. And who was delivered to a coalition on a silver plate by the west European subcontractors that have built the entire AD, communication, and command system of Hussain. Every single data center, every single command station, every single communication hub location, and technical details have been provided to the coalition before the campaign, making a planning process a fukin park visit.
In Korea, coalition has lost about 3000 planes, making a thousand per year - or 3 per DAY.
In Vietnam US losses were FOUR aircraft a DAY.
Russkie losses in this 2.5 year campaign are shockingly low, and this is crystal clear to any professional.
Su-34 proved to be a formidable weapon system, delivering a giant share of all ordnance in this conflict.
Which is why those have not only being ordered at increased scale, but upgraded according to the conflict lessons learned.
You lack a single clue and historical/technical perspective on the matter, and all you can provide to this community is an endless show of arrogance.
It is actually pathetic rather than anything else, but it is your choice how to present yourself in front of multinational community.

Agree with all, but give su34 some better sensors and MAWS and RWR

That’s all

.It may be hard to compare it exactly because it's a different generation of equipment. Vietnam certainly had a much weaker AD than Ukraine, but also a much weaker tactical air force. Ukraine lost most of its planes plus those that the West gave them from the former Warsaw Pact countries and additionally planes that they renovated during the war. I don't know what the number is, but it was certainly quite large. The USA had such an advantage in air force that they carried out bombing campaigns like those against the Third Reich.

anyone got info on weather they upgraded Platan or not?

In both the new NVO and M variants the aircraft is basically supposed to get a completely new or upgraded avionics set. This will highly likely at the very least include an upgrade to the Platan sight.

I think the Su-34 would greatly benefit from the Al-41F1S given the weight of the new equipment, armor, and beefy cabin. This airplane is supposed to hold its own against fighterd after all.