Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

Hole wrote:
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.

You confirm  

GarryB wrote:

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.

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.

No weapons but payload with FTs and pods …
In general F-15E max A2G weapons and pics with it 12 x 500 Kg Su-34 must 3 x 1500 kg bombs so 6 and 4.5 tons all others between about 500 kg to 1 t up to about 3 tons Bombers 18 + tons the power is there...

the new Kh-50 not in service only some first infos is not anti-ships

And as you say Hahahahahaha…  

Labrador wrote:the new Kh-50 not in service only some first infos is not anti-ships

some first infos? I am curious the source, can you provide?

GarryB wrote:

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)

Maybe every modern multirole can take off with max combat payload and even overload, but under such circumstances speed, range and manoeuverability are poor. Such aircraft is a real "flying pig" with no combat value, and it can be easily shot down anytime.

And it would be difficult to find enough space for the bombs/weapons.

Put conformal fuel tanks to make more room. Why not?

The Su-17M4 could carry 4 tons but could carry not the full load on the MBD3-U6-68 bomb racks because on the Ground some bombs would block the main gear doors.

the new Kh-50 not in service only some first infos is not anti-ships

No it is not... but then the Su-34 is not in Naval Aviation service yet either... only Su-30s.

The Kh-50 is intended for internal carriage on the upgraded Tu-22M3M, so it is clearly intended for the land and naval strike roles.

And it would be difficult to find enough space for the bombs/weapons.

Exactly... these weights are theoretical... and today with new modern weapons often lighter than older weapons it is actually hard to get to max weight.

Case in point, the Su-33 has a weapon weight limit of 6.5 tons... now the Su-33 can't carry external fuel tanks and the heaviest external store it can carry is a 500kg iron bomb... so even if all 12 weapon hard points had a 500kg bomb attached... that is three tons.

Sure, some of its weapon pylons could carry twin bombs but most of its weapon pylons can't carry 500kg bombs and can only carry much lighter AAMs.

Originally the Su-33 was supposed to be able to carry the 4.5 ton Moskit under its two centreline pylons, plus a couple of AAMs, but today there is only the 500kg bombs... and with Gefest & T avionics it would normally carry two bombs at most.

Put conformal fuel tanks to make more room. Why not?

It is still pretty limited as to what it could carry.

Kh-50 will probably have antiship capabilities. With much better electronics than before, missiles are becoming multi-role.

Oniks and kh-35, even older Granit, proved to have land attack mode.

So instead of having a stock of antiship and a stock of land attack missiles, they will have one stock of missiles capable of anything. Even s-400, buk, pantsirs could be able to attack land and sea targets. For buk it is sure.

Isos wrote:Kh-50 will probably have antiship capabilities. With much better electronics than before, missiles are becoming multi-role.

Oniks and kh-35, even older Granit, proved to have land attack mode.

So instead of having a stock of antiship and a stock of land attack missiles, they will have one stock of missiles capable of anything. Even s-400, buk, pantsirs could be able to attack land and sea targets. For buk it is sure.

Not agree for Kh-50 never see it in more too soon to say and in addition similar to Kh-101 not antiship it is a LACM as Tomahawk, AGM-86, KD-20 etc...

I think some anti ship missiles have to have a degree of speed difference. Mind you, Yakhont (Onyx) was shown to hit land targets in Syria as well as it's inherently a antishio missile, as well as it's supersonic.

It is not the case that anti ship missiles have found to have land attack capabilities.

Those land attack capabilities have actually been added...

Recently a Kh-35U has been tested against land targets too.

Modern cruise missiles have terminal guidance to improve accuracy down to a level to make them useful against point targets without needing to have a nuclear warhead.

As such most modern cruise missiles can also be used against ships because a ship on the water is something most terminal guidance systems can detect and make out.

Not agree for Kh-50 never see it in more too soon to say and in addition similar to Kh-101 not antiship it is a LACM as Tomahawk, AGM-86, KD-20 etc...

The Tu-22M3M is intended for land attack and naval attack duties... unlike the Su-34, which is land based strike... the Su-32 was the naval version... until they used that number for a improved version of the Su-26 trainer/aerobatics aircraft.

Labrador wrote:

Isos wrote:Kh-50 will probably have antiship capabilities. With much better electronics than before, missiles are becoming multi-role.

Oniks and kh-35, even older Granit, proved to have land attack mode.

So instead of having a stock of antiship and a stock of land attack missiles, they will have one stock of missiles capable of anything. Even s-400, buk, pantsirs could be able to attack land and sea targets. For buk it is sure.

Not agree for Kh-50 never see it in more too soon to say and in addition similar to Kh-101 not antiship it is a LACM as Tomahawk, AGM-86, KD-20 etc...

Kh-101 has nothing to do with kh-50. Kh-101 is improved kh-55 which has an antiship version. No one knows if kh-101 can or can't be used as antiship missile. No one though oniks was capable of hiting land target untill they hit land targets in syria.

Kh-50 is in development which means an all new missile. If they were happy with previous test of multi role missiles like oniks and kh-35 they will make it multurole.

Instead of having a stock of 100 antiship kh-55 and 100 kh-101 for land attack you can buy 150-200 kh-50 to have a capacity increased by two for both roles. And no need to produce two different version. Moreover if they add a radar inside it could also be used as anti radar.

Modern chips and memories allow to extend usefullness of missiles by just programming both capacities.


You can expect such thing also for R-77M. I have seen a brochure that says even older r-77 can be used for ground attack as anti radar missiles. New one could potentialy be used as anti ship missile. R-37 would be just as good as kh-31 against ship or vetter because it flis very high and does a top attack. Ships with limited AD can't do lot against that sort of missiles.

Isos wrote:

Labrador wrote:

Isos wrote:Kh-50 will probably have antiship capabilities. With much better electronics than before, missiles are becoming multi-role.

Oniks and kh-35, even older Granit, proved to have land attack mode.

So instead of having a stock of antiship and a stock of land attack missiles, they will have one stock of missiles capable of anything. Even s-400, buk, pantsirs could be able to attack land and sea targets. For buk it is sure.

Not agree for Kh-50 never see it in more too soon to say and in addition similar to Kh-101 not antiship it is a LACM as Tomahawk, AGM-86, KD-20 etc...

Kh-101 has nothing to do with kh-50. Kh-101 is improved kh-55 which has an antiship version. No one knows if kh-101 can or can't be used as antiship missile. No one though oniks was capable of hiting land target untill they hit land targets in syria.

Kh-50 is in development which means an all new missile. If they were happy with previous test of multi role missiles like oniks and kh-35 they will make it multurole.

Instead of having a stock of 100 antiship kh-55 and 100 kh-101 for land attack you can buy 150-200 kh-50 to have a capacity increased by two for both roles. And no need to produce two different version. Moreover if they add a radar inside it could also be used as anti radar.

Modern chips and memories allow to extend usefullness of missiles by just programming both capacities.


You can expect such thing also for R-77M. I have seen a brochure that says even older r-77 can be used for ground attack as anti radar missiles. New one could potentialy be used as anti ship missile. R-37 would be just as good as kh-31 against ship or vetter because it flis very high and does a top attack. Ships with limited AD can't do lot against that sort of missiles.

Your sources are ?  i can't post links but on militaryrussia.ru nothing for antiship and i have see others good stuff and it's the same
in addition it is not certain this missile will be built* znd with an enough limited budget prority is for Borei and Yars.
During many years i have see infos Kh-101 soon in service...

[quote="construction - no information / militaryrussia.ru"]

No source. The missile is still in production. I'm just guessing. If they managed to make an oniks able to attack ground targets, why not make the kh-50 able to hit ships ?

They add this dual capability to kh-35, to oniks and even tested land attack mode on old granit. Why wouldn't they make kh-50 able to attack ships and land ?

Difference is that Oniks and Kh-35U have an radar seeker while Kh-101 and Kh-50 have TERCOM + optical system. It is easier for a radar to see big things on the ground then for a small camera to find a ship out in the ocean.

Hole wrote:Difference is that Oniks and Kh-35U have an radar seeker while Kh-101 and Kh-50 have TERCOM + optical system. It is easier for a radar to see big things on the ground then for a small camera to find a ship out in the ocean.

Kh-50 is in development. So if from the start they make it multirole, it isn't an issue.

Isos wrote:
Kh-50 is in development. So if from the start they make it multirole, it isn't an issue.

True, but Kh-50 is subsonic and stealth. Not sure if its better AShM then hypersonic GZUR (same range and ~size)

What is Gzur?

miketheterrible wrote:What is Gzur?

Hypersonic air launched antiship missile.

True, but Kh-50 is subsonic and stealth. Not sure if its better AShM then hypersonic GZUR (same range and ~size)

Not every target needs an hypersonic missile to be destroyed. Why do you think they have kh-35 ?

A good mix is the best solution.

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

https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1046029970022309888

Can someone post the pictures here. I can't.

Impact images of kh-35U.

If it was a hit at the waterline, crew would have a hard time fixing the hole. Now imagine a warhead two time bigger which goes 3 times the speed of kh-35

In one side out the other.

Intersting how it hit just where the crew is. When the buk downed the airliner in Ukraine it also hit the front where the crew is.

This way you touch the ship and the crew so if you don't destroy the ship you kill the crew and the system used to drive the ship. A kh-35 alone won't be able to destroy a destroyer but it will make it inoperative by touching the crew. Just like if the buk don't destroy the plane, it can still kill the pilots and let it crash. Very sneaky.

Isos wrote:Intersting how it hit just where the crew is. When the buk downed the airliner in Ukraine it also hit the front where the crew is.

This way you touch the ship and the crew so if you don't destroy the ship you kill the crew and the system used to drive the ship. A kh-35 alone won't be able to destroy a destroyer but it will make it inoperative by touching the crew. Just like if the buk don't destroy the plane, it can still kill the pilots and let it crash. Very sneaky.

The hint would be even stronger if they had hit exactly the bridge. If you have precision for that you can "decapitate" a big vessel with a relatively small warhead.