Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

Every F-16 could carry B61 nuclear bombs. Like the F/A-18 and the B-1B. Or the MiG-29 and Su-27 on the russian side. There are treaties that prevent it.

Actually, Kinzhal could be massed produced along with Kh-32 due to their strategic value and simpler to make.

Onyx was still in development in 1987. It became operational somewhere in 2000s, as Russians received indian fundings to complete development.

It started low rate production in the late 1980s but there was no money and no real interest in spending money to replace the Granit with these missiles, the focus was instead on developing a multi missile launcher for a variety of missiles... Onyx entered service on a small missile craft in 2002... and did not receive Indian fundings for the missile... the Brahmos is based on the export version of Onyx called Yakhont, which has a shorter range and smaller warhead and no nuclear warhead version.

then why not every F-15/F-16 can carry nukes? perhaps you dont need so many carriers.

I would expect they can.

Soviet MiG-29s were wired to carry tactical nuke weapons...

Actually, Kinzhal could be massed produced along with Kh-32 due to their strategic value and simpler to make.

The INF treaty limits the performance of the Iskander, but the Kinzhal is air launched and has no such limitations... they could make it a fully two stage missile that rapidly climbs to very high altitude and coasts towards the target and then fires up its rocket engine and flys towards the target ending in a steep zig zagging dive to penetrate SAM defences... or just high altitude air bursts a nuke to make all radars and electronics go night night...

Hell, the US is scrapping deals left right and centre... why not make a neutron bomb for it...

GarryB wrote:

Onyx was still in development in 1987. It became operational somewhere in 2000s, as Russians received indian fundings to complete development.

It started low rate production in the late 1980s but there was no money and no real interest in spending money to replace the Granit with these missiles, the focus was instead on developing a multi missile launcher for a variety of missiles... Onyx entered service on a small missile craft in 2002... and did not receive Indian fundings for the missile... the Brahmos is based on the export version of Onyx called Yakhont, which has a shorter range and smaller warhead and no nuclear warhead version.

then why not every F-15/F-16 can carry nukes? perhaps you dont need so many carriers.

I would expect they can.

Soviet MiG-29s were wired to carry tactical nuke weapons...

Actually, Kinzhal could be massed produced along with Kh-32 due to their strategic value and simpler to make.

The INF treaty limits the performance of the Iskander, but the Kinzhal is air launched and has no such limitations... they could make it a fully two stage missile that rapidly climbs to very high altitude and coasts towards the target and then fires up its rocket engine and flys towards the target ending in a steep zig zagging dive to penetrate SAM defences... or just high altitude air bursts a nuke to make all radars and electronics go night night...

Hell, the US is scrapping deals left right and centre... why not make a neutron bomb for it...

Onyx was mounted on one MRK pr.1234.7 for evaluation purposes in late 80s, but the missile was then only working up. It was adopted in service much, much later. The development was finalised only with Indian funding.

Event without the booster stage that would be attached to the ship launched version the missile still looks relatively small.

I am guessing that the Su-34 can carry 4 of them, plus 2 short range R-73 for A2A combat.

Edit: Just checked the specs for the Su-34, it definitely can carry 4 of them plus 2 IR for A2A. It can theoretically carry even more but not all hardpoints can handle that weight. But I wonder cat it carry 4 Kh-35 and an additional tank under the fuselage, might be to much of a performance downer, don't know.

Tandem warhead, are ships getting equipped with reactive armour?


Major Kong would approve of this setup!

Like you said, the missile is relatively small, a tandem shaped charge warhead increases its destructive power.

Hole wrote:Like you said, the missile is relatively small, a tandem shaped charge warhead increases its destructive power.

As far as i know, improved Kh-35 missile has range increased up to 250km. Obviously, new engine is mounted, or the fuel capacity increased. The missile is roughly the same size as harpoon missile.

kumbor wrote:

Hole wrote:Like you said, the missile is relatively small, a tandem shaped charge warhead increases its destructive power.

As far as i know, improved Kh-35 missile has range increased up to 250km. Obviously, new engine is mounted, or the fuel capacity increased. The missile is roughly the same size as harpoon missile.

New shorter engine. Leaves more room for fuel inside the missile.

The Su-34 fighter aircraft launched the newest anti-ship missiles X-35U "with max range over 250 км".

It launched a Kh-32 which travels up to 1,000km. Rather long range imo.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Su-34 fighter aircraft launched the newest anti-ship missiles X-35U "with max range over 250 км".

Well Over...the export version have a range of 260km!

It exists already and is called Avangard. And flies with 20Ma The problem here is how much costs total cost of ownership?

Avangard is a powered glider that needs an ICBM to launch it into the target area at operational speeds.

What I am talking about is a theatre missile that can be used in a conventional conflict that is not limited by the fact that it is based on a short range ballistic missile.

By making it bigger you get better performance and if the US gets treaty ripping happy and tears up the INF treaty you get a ready made ground launched IRBM you could mount on land vehicles overnight...

It is also something you could put in your UKSK launcher tubes and carry on all your ships... with perhaps a reduced range of maybe 2,000km.

There is huge irony here because it was no that long ago that I was arguing that putting an Iskander on a ship was stupid because they already had Zircon and other potential systems that using a 500km ground to ground missile was a bit silly... getting within 500km of an enemy ship is risky... but being ship based you could triple it length and increase its flight range to 2,000km plus from a surface launched position... in fact you could fit the warhead with a scramjet sustainer engine and make it even better...

Kinzhal is surely not cheapest weapon and is to be used only in specific situations. At least so far. Not going to replace Zircon not Onyx. Mainly for CSGs. Or deliver Novitchok to Downing Street 10

Iskanders are not super expensive AFAIK, and don't have nuclear ramjet motors so are perfectly acceptable weapons of war... and would be devastating against most targets...

Onyx was mounted on one MRK pr.1234.7 for evaluation purposes in late 80s, but the missile was then only working up. It was adopted in service much, much later. The development was finalised only with Indian funding.

India never saw Onyx missiles, the Brahmos is an Indian version of the Yakhont export model of the Onyx.

The contribution of the Indian investment was multirole land attack capability for Brahmos which was then retrofitted to Onyx and other missile types like Granit...

Onyx was ready for the 90s... they just didn't need it... I mean what would they do with it in mass production?

It does not fit in a Granit launch tube... otherwise Oscar class SSBNs would not be getting launchers for Onyx and the upgraded Oscars would be carrying 24 Onyx missiles instead of 72 which they are supposed to be carrying.

Onyx was never going to enter Russian service until the UKSK launcher for it entered service and if you check, you will likely find the date for the first order for Onyx by the Russian Navy is very much related to the entry into service of a vessel with a UKSK launcher.

It was the same with the R-77 AAM... they had them for ages before the Air Force actually ordered bigger than a test sample because there were not that many in service Russian aircraft that could even use them during the 90s and 00s.

Edit: Just checked the specs for the Su-34, it definitely can carry 4 of them plus 2 IR for A2A. It can theoretically carry even more but not all hardpoints can handle that weight. But I wonder cat it carry 4 Kh-35 and an additional tank under the fuselage, might be to much of a performance downer, don't know.

Kh-35 is a 600-700kg missile so it should be able to carry about 6 or so of them on the two inner wing pylons and the under nacelle pylons...

Tandem warhead, are ships getting equipped with reactive armour?

Not sure why it would have a tandem warhead... it would be much more sensible to just have one big warhead...

DAT tandem on missile? oh I like very much

If you mean that tandem then we are not talking HE... we are talking sHEs...

I guess that means that Su-34 will carry tactical missiles of all kind. Not sth bigger like Oniks or long range cruise missiles

It will be their primary medium strike aircraft so it will pretty much carry all of their tactical missiles... but Onyx is rather big so it could only likely carry three I suspect...

miketheterrible wrote:It launched a Kh-32 which travels up to 1,000km. Rather long range imo.

He can't have this missile he do 6 tons !

BTW payload is to 8 - 12 tons seems 8 and eventualy 9 with less fuel i have read in a CAM but for a very heavy fighter-bomber as others Sukhois remains low
a F-15E which do 36 tons can host 10.7 tons what can the reason for Su-34 and others Flankers ?

You are correct, wrong missile I was thinking of (Kh-31)

Labrador wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:It launched a Kh-32 which travels up to 1,000km. Rather long range imo.

He can't have this missile he do 6 tons !

BTW payload is to 8 - 12 tons seems 8 and eventualy 9 with less fuel i have read in a CAM but for a very heavy fighter-bomber as others Sukhois remains low
a F-15E which do 36 tons can host 10.7 tons what can the reason for Su-34 and others Flankers ?

F-15 with 10,7 tons combat payload? You need 0,5l Vodka. Now! Quickly!

kumbor wrote:

F-15 with 10,7 tons combat payload? You need 0,5l Vodka. Now! Quickly!

I don't need...
It is the true i don't read fanboish sources ! and the more powerful fighter bombers not only for payload but also for bombs load with many HPs especialy under FTs
in more he have all the panoply with for soon even AGM-158B 950 km range !
The Su-34 is very good also but a little less.

George1 wrote:I guess that means that Su-34 will carry tactical missiles of all kind. Not sth bigger like Oniks or long range cruise missiles

Well at first su-32 was designed to be a ship killer.

If this test means they tested kh-35 only now, that's a bad news.

They should improve the use of new missiles like kh-59, kh-35, kh-38 grom cruise missile a little bit more.

Su-34 will have hard time bombing with free fall bombs a country protected by modern air force.

Stand off is really needed. Just look how israel is afraid of s-300 while they even have a large amount of stand off weapons.

Labrador wrote:

kumbor wrote:

F-15 with 10,7 tons combat payload? You need 0,5l Vodka. Now! Quickly!

I don't need...
It is the true i don't read fanboish sources ! and the more powerful fighter bombers not only for payload but also for bombs load with many HPs especialy under FTs
in more he have all the panoply with for soon even AGM-158B 950 km range !
The Su-34 is very good also but a little less.

The F-15E can carry max. 11.113kg of weapons, but with that amount it could only cary enough fuel to fly once around the airbase.

The Su-34 can carry 8.200kg and fly nearly 4.000km.

The relevant tread is closed, so it's here:
Su-57 5th-generation fighter to be armed with ultra-long-range HS missile

BTW payload is to 8 - 12 tons seems 8 and eventualy 9 with less fuel i have read in a CAM but for a very heavy fighter-bomber as others Sukhois remains low
a F-15E which do 36 tons can host 10.7 tons what can the reason for Su-34 and others Flankers ?

Hahahahahaha.... yeah... and the F-16 can carry 7 tons and the F-111 can fly at mach 2.5...

What you are reading is theoretical numbers... an F-15E can't carry 10 tons of weapons, just like the F-16 can't carry 7 tons and the F-111 has never flown at mach 2.5.

Russian numbers are generally practical warloads.

BTW for the anti ship role the Su-34 would probably carry Kh-15s or the new Kh-50, but it is not a heavy naval strike aircraft... that is what the Tu-22M3M is for with Kinzhals and Kh-15s and Kh-32s.

And that link you gave Tsavo Lion...:

The size of the missile (more than four meters long and the take off weight of six tons) limited its use to only the MiG-31 interceptor aircraft. The work to create the R-37M was launched in the late 2000s.

600kgs not 6,000kgs...(ie .6 of a ton... not 6 tons)

deleted