Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

The avionics of the Su-34 are optimised for strike missions, but it does have capacity as a fighter aircraft too.

The Su-30 was intended as a mini AWACS platform that uses its larger radar to operate with smaller fighters like the MiG-29/35 where it finds targets and the smaller aircraft operating closer to the enemy launch missiles in radar silence and then retire to rearm and refuel as needed.

An Su-34 with a massive AESA radar could perform a similar role with its large radar being even better for the job and its extended flight range and weapon capacity would make it a rather good choice to support fighter operations.

I would say the best thing to do would be to put Su-57 avionics in the aircraft and having the same engines in the three heavy flanker types in service just makes sense too (Su-30, Su-34, Su-35) just in terms of economics and logistics.

It is not stealthy, but that does not matter much.

Atmosphere wrote: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.

The Su-34 "M" version is supposed to get those engines with the TVC.

GarryB wrote:The avionics of the Su-34 are optimised for strike missions, but it does have capacity as a fighter aircraft too.

The Su-30 was intended as a mini AWACS platform that uses its larger radar to operate with smaller fighters like the MiG-29/35 where it finds targets and the smaller aircraft operating closer to the enemy launch missiles in radar silence and then retire to rearm and refuel as needed.

An Su-34 with a massive AESA radar could perform a similar role with its large radar being even better for the job and its extended flight range and weapon capacity would make it a rather good choice to support fighter operations.

I would say the best thing to do would be to put Su-57 avionics in the aircraft and having the same engines in the three heavy flanker types in service just makes sense too (Su-30, Su-34, Su-35) just in terms of economics and logistics.

It is not stealthy, but that does not matter much.

Su 34 losses are highest in the airforce. Its use is also high.
That plane needs to have a higher G raiting or move to another platform for strike missions in order to withstand Patriot hits.

Su 34 losses are highest in the airforce. Its use is also high.

Based on Kiev propaganda or do you have figures from the Russian military?

That plane needs to have a higher G raiting or move to another platform for strike missions in order to withstand Patriot hits.

Do we know if a single Russian armed combat aircraft has been hit by a Patriot?

The only kills I have heard and believe would be the Il-76 transport with Ukrainian prisoners on board that was shot down.

Increasing g capacity is pointless... no aircraft can dodge missiles...

[quote="GarryB"]

no aircraft can dodge missiles...

Not in the sense that they can keep on advancing and meeting them head on.
BUT it can outrun and out-manoeuvre them, as the footage of the failed engagement against it by Patriots clearly show.
They made a thigh turn of 120°, accelerated back, dived down and when the missiles , having spent their own propulsive charge came closer , it made another one in the opposite direction and in the end made a climb, leaving them unable of counter-manoeuvre.
So both manoeuvrability, acceleration and climbing rate matter there, just they have to be all raised at the same time, not one at the expense of others.

GarryB wrote:

Su 34 losses are highest in the airforce. Its use is also high.

Based on Kiev propaganda or do you have figures from the Russian military?

That plane needs to have a higher G raiting or move to another platform for strike missions in order to withstand Patriot hits.

Do we know if a single Russian armed combat aircraft has been hit by a Patriot?

The only kills I have heard and believe would be the Il-76 transport with Ukrainian prisoners on board that was shot down.

Increasing g capacity is pointless... no aircraft can dodge missiles...

There are documented footage Su-34 losses.
Of course aircraft can dodge missiles. That is why there are missile evading maneuvers.
A improved ground attack Su-57 version with increased stealth should probably be the future.

BUT it can outrun and out-manoeuvre them, as the footage of the failed engagement against it by Patriots clearly show.

The point is that very few aircraft are able to pull heavy g turns while loaded with heavy air to ground ordinance loads and full fuel loads, so increasing the structural strength of an aircraft to allow better manouver performance will increase the dry weight of the aircraft and reduce fuel and payload weight performance.

So both manoeuvrability, acceleration and climbing rate matter there, just they have to be all raised at the same time, not one at the expense of others.

They matter only when you are aware you are under attack and what the incoming missile is doing... but if you are aware of an attack and what the incoming missile is doing then the manouvers do not require Mig-29OVT levels of manouverability.

There are documented footage Su-34 losses.

I am not saying none have been lost, I am saying the losses were mostly necessary and pussies need to accept there are losses in war instead of falling to pieces and claiming this or that design must be crap of aircraft are being shot down.

Of course aircraft can dodge missiles. That is why there are missile evading maneuvers.

Missiles move at very high speed and are more like bullets than other aircraft and if you have information about an incoming bullet you can avoid it being able to hit you by moving in very specific ways that ensure it is unable to match your movements and end up hitting you, but that is not the same as being able to dodge bullets.

Modern Russian and Soviet missile often had directional fragmentation warheads when meant even if the missile didn't hit you directly it could still destroy the target it was after by directing the fragments from its warhead at the location of the target when it exploded.

The hollywood bullshit of "dodging" missiles is ridiculous, but widely believed...

A improved ground attack Su-57 version with increased stealth should probably be the future.

Personally I think an enlarged Su-57 would make sense but I suspect equally a reduced size PAK DA might also be considered too.

The PAK DA is to replace the Bear in the subsonic strategic role, but also the Tu-22M3 in the theatre bomber role, which would be rather more effective now with the introduction of glide kits for dumb bombs... in fact I would wager that either the bomb bay of the PAK DA has been modified or they are going to have special glide kits that can be attached and fit internally on bombs in the PAK DA for the purpose of allowing large amounts of bombs to be carried with glide kits attached.

A high altitude stealth flying wing with self defence AAMs might make a strike model of the Su-57 redundant... the core problem being carrying large amounts of conventional ordinance internally is going to make the aircraft very big very quickly, which means more internal fuel which makes the problem worse.

I rather think an enlarged Su-57 might be a good aircraft for carrying larger numbers of long range missiles internally... perhaps less emphasis on manouver performance and have extra weapon bays... at the moment they have two large weapon bays between the engines... perhaps a longer airframe and make those weapon bays longer, but also extend the thickness of the fuselage out past the engine bays and put internal weapon bays on the outside of the engine bays as well... so from wingtip you have the wing, with external weapon positions used when stealth is not critical, and then you have two weapon bays, one in front of the other, then an engine naccelle, and then the two centreline weapon bays of extended length, and then the other engine naccelle and then two more weapon bays and then the wing...

They could replace the current engines with the engines being used on the Tu-160M... they could make it into a delta wing design with no tail surfaces.

But then I suspect the PAK DA might make a more suitable design even if they scale it down and use the new engines for the Su-57 in a reduced size model for shorter range missions.

They are currently spoiled for choice and have a lot of excellent aircraft types available to them... perhaps the final choice will be a scaled up S-70 drone with two engines as a longer range strike... perhaps 50 ton MTOW...

The fact is that the missions the Su-34 flys are the most dangerous any aircraft can fly... you are flying into an enemy air defence network to take down targets... they can let you fly through a dozen times and then set up an ambush, or they can try to shoot you down every time...

GarryB wrote:

BUT it can outrun and out-manoeuvre them, as the footage of the failed engagement against it by Patriots clearly show.

The point is that very few aircraft are able to pull heavy g turns while loaded with heavy air to ground ordinance loads and full fuel loads, so increasing the structural strength of an aircraft to allow better manouver performance will increase the dry weight of the aircraft and reduce fuel and payload weight performance.

So both manoeuvrability, acceleration and climbing rate matter there, just they have to be all raised at the same time, not one at the expense of others.

They matter only when you are aware you are under attack and what the incoming missile is doing... but if you are aware of an attack and what the incoming missile is doing then the manouvers do not require Mig-29OVT levels of manouverability.

There are documented footage Su-34 losses.

I am not saying none have been lost, I am saying the losses were mostly necessary and pussies need to accept there are losses in war instead of falling to pieces and claiming this or that design must be crap of aircraft are being shot down.

Of course aircraft can dodge missiles. That is why there are missile evading maneuvers.

Missiles move at very high speed and are more like bullets than other aircraft and if you have information about an incoming bullet you can avoid it being able to hit you by moving in very specific ways that ensure it is unable to match your movements and end up hitting you, but that is not the same as being able to dodge bullets.

Modern Russian and Soviet missile often had directional fragmentation warheads when meant even if the missile didn't hit you directly it could still destroy the target it was after by directing the fragments from its warhead at the location of the target when it exploded.

The hollywood bullshit of "dodging" missiles is ridiculous, but widely believed...

A improved ground attack Su-57 version with increased stealth should probably be the future.

Personally I think an enlarged Su-57 would make sense but I suspect equally a reduced size PAK DA might also be considered too.

The PAK DA is to replace the Bear in the subsonic strategic role, but also the Tu-22M3 in the theatre bomber role, which would be rather more effective now with the introduction of glide kits for dumb bombs... in fact I would wager that either the bomb bay of the PAK DA has been modified or they are going to have special glide kits that can be attached and fit internally on bombs in the PAK DA for the purpose of allowing large amounts of bombs to be carried with glide kits attached.

A high altitude stealth flying wing with self defence AAMs might make a strike model of the Su-57 redundant... the core problem being carrying large amounts of conventional ordinance internally is going to make the aircraft very big very quickly, which means more internal fuel which makes the problem worse.

I rather think an enlarged Su-57 might be a good aircraft for carrying larger numbers of long range missiles internally... perhaps less emphasis on manouver performance and have extra weapon bays... at the moment they have two large weapon bays between the engines... perhaps a longer airframe and make those weapon bays longer, but also extend the thickness of the fuselage out past the engine bays and put internal weapon bays on the outside of the engine bays as well... so from wingtip you have the wing, with external weapon positions used when stealth is not critical, and then you have two weapon bays, one in front of the other, then an engine naccelle, and then the two centreline weapon bays of extended length, and then the other engine naccelle and then two more weapon bays and then the wing...

They could replace the current engines with the engines being used on the Tu-160M... they could make it into a delta wing design with no tail surfaces.

But then I suspect the PAK DA might make a more suitable design even if they scale it down and use the new engines for the Su-57 in a reduced size model for shorter range missions.

They are currently spoiled for choice and have a lot of excellent aircraft types available to them... perhaps the final choice will be a scaled up S-70 drone with two engines as a longer range strike... perhaps 50 ton MTOW...

The fact is that the missions the Su-34 flys are the most dangerous any aircraft can fly... you are flying into an enemy air defence network to take down targets... they can let you fly through a dozen times and then set up an ambush, or they can try to shoot you down every time...

They probably need to change the modify the tail section for stealth and enlarge the weapon bays. Otherwise stated stage 2 engines characteristics are an improvement.

Please do not repost long entire posts when replying as it also makes it more difficult to determine which part you are referring to.
GarryB

A week muting in 3...2...1...

Just a warning this time, simply because although posting that entire post just to make one comment was rather a waste of space, he did not repost a conversation with multiple comments from different members.

Please do not repost long entire posts when replying as it also makes it more difficult to determine which part you are referring to.

In this case you reposted my entire post where I talked about drones and modified Su-57s and reduced size PAK DAs, so when you say:

They probably need to change the modify the tail section for stealth and enlarge the weapon bays. Otherwise stated stage 2 engines characteristics are an improvement.

It is hard to tell which you are referring to... enlarge the weapon bay, so that narrows it down to the S-70, Su-57 and PAK DA... we don't know what the PAK DA looks like other than it is a flying wing so I can assume you don't mean that, and the S-70 is also a flying wing with no real tail so I guess you mean the Su-57.

I actually liked what they did to the F-16 to make the strike version F-16XL with the removal of the horizontal tail and an enlarged delta wing that could have large amounts of ordinance hung underneath it but with stealth you need internal ordinance so a flying wing is ideal but size matters and you are quickly going to end up with something that is so much like the PAK DA looks like it probably makes sense to start there and go smaller, rather than go the other way.

AFAIK the PAK DA is supposed to carry about a 30 ton payload to strategic distances, so one would assume that offloading a lot of fuel would allow even more weapons to be carried on theater strike missions with conventional weapons.

Stealth is not really actually related to size, the B-2 is probably Americas most stealthy aircraft despite smaller 5th gen fighters.

There is no word about the number of aircrafts.

They show two, so we can say the delivered two or more su34.

Arrow wrote:https://t.me/ZOV_Voevoda/19671

Two more Su-34s. How many new Su-34s have been delivered this year? It doesn't seem like much, but I could be wrong?

This is the third batch of Su-34s delivered this year. If it's two aircraft per batch (which is for all we know, not true) then they will have delivered 6 so far, with probably one more batch to go before the end of the year. But we don't know how many aircraft per batch because they're deliberately hiding that due to wartime.

Also they drastically increased production of military equipment, including jet production.

marcellogo wrote:
Not in the sense that they can keep on advancing and meeting them head on.
BUT it can outrun and out-manoeuvre them, as the footage of the failed engagement against it by Patriots clearly show.
They made a thigh  turn of 120°, accelerated back, dived down and when the missiles , having spent their own propulsive charge came closer , it made another one in the opposite direction and in the end made a climb, leaving them unable of counter-manoeuvre.
So both manoeuvrability, acceleration and climbing rate matter there, just they have to be all raised at the same time, not one at the expense of others.

Not questioning the best judgement of the VKS, which are employing the Su-34 massively in the SVO, but the encounter you mention is a very rare and valuable opportunity to assess high end Western AD vs Russian air power and makes it IMHO very clear why supersonic flight on mil power, excess lift / high maneouverability at supersonic speeds and low RCS are so valuable, even for strike fighters. The new gen aircraft from Sukhoi could perform that same mission with a much higher chance of success (by reaching launching distance due to delayed detection by enemy radars) and in particular the Su-57 should be able to egress with much higher chances of scape due to advances in maneuverability and propulsion. It was lucky that the pilot managed to escape (the Patriot battery attacked from outside of their NEZ), but also you need to admit that the plane is indeed a box of surprises, able to hold its own in regards of maneuverability and kinematics, which are normally mediocre on tactical bombers